ANTIBOAH 
FAULK GOL RAT  ΦΙΧΏΩ ΝΌΟΣ. TOVTAAION 


ΤΠ ΟΣ MONAZ ON LTINA. 


- of the Cheologicn; 8, 
αὐτὰ 
4° 


Uiyy 


PRINCETON, N. J. 


--- 
Presented by “WA two anwe WN \+> oy —, 


U 


“Ὁ, 


τ 


Ἢ 


ΕἸΣ ΩΣ : 


"᾿ ὦ 


ἢ 
Ἂ 


Fixe”. 


Pip lee _ 


YR 
wr 

er? 
cee ae 


eae 
τῳ 


BY, 
» ary 
ite 
τς 
ΕΣ 


ὃ 
5 
Ξ 


DIALOGUE 


a Figen CAN AND A’ JEW 


ENTITLED 


ANTIBOAH ΠΑΠΙΣΚΟΥ͂ KAI ®IAONOS IOTAAION 
ΠΡΟΣ MONAXON TINA 


THE GREEK TEXT 


EDITED WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES, TOGETHER WITH A 
. DISCUSSION OF 


CHRISTIAN POLEMICS AGAINST THE JEWS 


INAUGURAL DISSERTATION FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF 
PHILOSOPHY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF MARBURG 


PRESENTED BY ( 


ARTHUR CUSHMAN McGIFFERT 


NEW YORK 
THE CHRISTIAN LITERATURE COMPANY 
1889 


CopyRicHT, 1889, BY i ya 
ἢ ARTHUR CUSHMAN McGIFFERT. | end 


. 
᾽ 
᾿ 
᾿ 
ty 
. - 
‘ ΕΝ] 
4 ᾽ 
+ 
4 Ἢ - 
* 
΄ 
. 
Ρ 
) , 
νι" ) Φ 
- 
» 
«΄ 
͵, 


PRY RA CE. 


In the fall of 1887, while engaged in collating manuscripts 
in the National Library at Paris, I found an entry in the catalogue 
which at once aroused my curiosity. Codex Greece. 1111 was said to 
contain, among other works, Papisci et Jasonis Jude@orum eum 
monacho quodam de christiana religione et Mosaica lege colloquium. 
Upon examining the manuscript, I discovered that the title was 
incorrect (the name Jasonis being substituted for Philonis), and 
that the work mentioned, although itself in the form of a dialogue, 
unfortunately had no connection with the lost second-century Dia- 
logue of Papiscus and Jason. It proved, however, to possess con- 
siderable intrinsic merit, and to be an excellent example of Christian 
polemics against the Jews; and, being particularly interested in the 
latter subject, I took the pains to transcribe the whole dialogue. 

Afterward my attention was called by Professor Harnack to a 
note in his Terte und Untersuchungen, Bd. 1., Hett 3, p. 126, which 
contained the information that Professor Zahn had discovered, in a 
MS. in St. Mark’s Library, at Venice, a dialogue with a title similar 
to the one found by myself. He had concluded that there was no 
relationship between it and the lost Dialogue of Papiscus and Jason, 
and had not transcribed it. Upon examination it proved to be an 
older and shorter recension of the Paris dialogue, and is therefore 
laid at the base of the text given in the following pages. 

Still later I learned from a communication made to Professor 
Harnack by Dr. Oscar von Gebhardt, that the same dialogue is 
extant in a third MS. in the library of the Most Holy Synod at 
Moscow. This MS. I have not seen, but my thanks are due to the 
librarian, who kindly furnished me with its variant readings for a 
part of the dialogue. 

Shortly before completing my work, I discovered that a large 
part of the material of the dialogue is incorporated in a series of 
tracts (published by Mai), bearing the common title Adversus 
Judawos Disputatio, and ascribed to Anastasius (see p. 17). The 


iv 


discovery caused me to donbt, for a time, the advisability of pub- 
lishing the text of the dialogue; but further examination of the 
work of Anastastus revealed such extensive and important differ- | 
ences between the two writings, that I was confirmed in my original 
intention. Anastasius’ tracts throw new light upon the composi- 
tion of the dialogue, and the relationship between the two furnishes 
an interesting chapter in the history of Christian literature. The 
interest which the latter possessed for me was due in a great part to 
its representative character as one of a large and important class 
of works which historians have greatly neglected. A thorough 
discussion of that class of writings is not attempted in this brief dis- 
sertation, but the effort has been made to give, in the first chapter 
of the Introduction, something of an idea of its nature and extent. 
The substance of the first and last paragraphs of the Introduc- 
tion appeared as a separate article, under the title, ‘“ Christian 
Polemics against the Jews,” in the Presbyterian Review for July, 


1888. 
ARTHUR CUSHMAN McGIFFERT. 


ΟΝ ΕΝ S: 
PAGE 
PTET Ritts τος pic an lio oe nce sree bb δ ύδυκι DIK GOW ae οὐθ WAR © slain Pe iii 
Pr TRODUCTION τι 6.0.5.2. ALPS ROS CAC alae Oe eno (αὶ, 1 
CHAPTER I.—CHRISTIAN POLEMICS AGAINST THE JEWS. 1 
$1. THe Nature oF THE POLEMICS ............ ee cece cease 1 
§ 2. List or ANTI-JEWISH WORKS..........-2..--. ee sseeeeres 12 
CHAPTER II.—DIALOGUE OF PAPISCUS AND PHILO...... 28 
Beep OPA TISU RIES 2 απ wisi τὸ κοτε sale bla slo sta Se aA Saale 28 
f $4, RELATION BETWEEN THE TWO FORMS OF THE DIALOGUE.... 31 
S$ 5, RELATION OF THE DIALOGUE ΤῸ OTHER ANTI-JEWISH WORKS. 32 
y ΕΟ SOUHRORS 4A NUN ΠΤ 255 δι ooo Sone xen ss Ὁ mvt pe ae eee 37 
$7. ΤΊΜΕ AND PLACE oF COMPOSITION. AUTHORSHIP.......--- 41 
8 8. ANaLysis Gy via ἢ. μι δον εὐ ΨΥ, soe ul ou, 0 tbe hie 44 
ΝΠ rey ce ον ΠΣ nw hpate’s s jie χων δῶρ goin ee pe SNE 49 
BBR τὺ ec tht toed ee εκ tat Re Re eae 85 


Beira U RE BEPERENCEHS |. ah lick ee νος οὖς ον ene τὸν pints 93 


ENTRODUCTION. 


CHAPTER I. 
CHRISTIAN POLEMICS AGAINST THE JEWS. 
S 1. The Nature of the Polemics. 


It lies in the very nature of the case that Christian polemics 


against the Jews should begin at an early date. The first problem [ 


which confronted the church when it began to come to self-con- 
sciousness and to reflect upon its own position was to determine 
its relation to Judaism. Its founder was held to be the Jewish 
Messiah, and yet he was rejected with scorn by the Jewish nation. 
His followers claimed for him all the rights and honors of that 
Messiah, but those rights and honors were denied him by his own 
people. There remained but one possibility open: the Jewish 
people were mistaken. The first problem of the Christian church 
was to prove this. All the circumstances of the age emphasized 
this need. Religion was at that time practically a national institu- 
tion. Each nation had its own religion, and was left by the Roman 
power in undisturbed possession of it so long as it remained within 
its national limits. But Christianity, Jewish in its origin, was 
repudiated by the nation in whose bosom it had been born, and 
thus, as a religion severed from national life, it contradicted all the 
principles of the age. Again, the worth of a religion then was 


measured to a great extent by its antiquity. But Christianity, if | 


the standpoint of the Jews were admitted, was nothing better 
than a novel superstition—without national approval, without the 
honor of antiquity. In this dilemma, felt very early by the church 
and felt with ever increasing force, there remained but the one 
course : to show to the world, first, that Christianity was the true 
Judaism, the true national faith, and secondly, that the Judaism 


of the day was in consequence a perversion of it and a departure > 
1 


2 


from it. ‘To prove the former it was necessary to show that Christ 
was the promised Messiah, whom the Jews themselves admitted 
would found a new order of things when he should come, to show 
that Christianity was the higher Judaism of the Messianic king- 
dom. There was but one way to proceed in the demonstration ; 
the Jews’ accepted book must be shown to prophesy of Christ and 
of his church, The search for Messianic prophecies began then at 
the very start. We sce the results of it in the New Testament 
itself. Had the life of Christ corresponded so exactly with the 
expectations of the age, with the prevalent idea of the Messiah, 
that no doubt could exist in any one’s mind that he was the 
promised Messiah, the effort to prove him such would of course 
have been superfluous. But this was not the case. The life of 
Christ contained so many elements apparently quite at variance 
with the Messianic prophecies that the disciples felt at the very 
start the need of justifying their belief in him, and that to them- 
selves as well as to the Jews. They would have felt the need had 
there been no hostile Jews to impress it upon them. They might 
have accepted Christ as the founder of a new religion entirely 
independent of and severed from all conneztion with Judaism, as 
Marcion did; but this could never have occurred to them as Jews 
trained in the expectation of a Messiah. A deliverer was to come 
—the Messiah. Christ came to deliver; he could be to his dis- 
ciples no one else than the Messiah, however much his life seemed 
to contradict the accepted Messianic ideas. The only alternative 
left them was to find themselves mistaken in their earlier inter- 
pretation of the Old Testament, and to find in it, with the key of 
Christ’s actual life, predictions corresponding with that life. 

But if the disciples were right in their views of Christ, the Jews 
must be wrong, and thus was felt the pressure to prove directly the 
falsity of their position, to prove, that is, that non-Christian Judaism 
Was a perversion of true, divinely ordained Judaism. This second 
stage appears early. The Epistle of Barnabas is its classic monu- 
ment. The necessity which lay upon the early church was a matter 
which concerned its very existence, and that entirely independent of 
all personal connection with the Jews, independent of any purpose 
of propagandism among them. Had no Jew attacked the claims of 
Christ as the Messiah, there would still have lain upon the church 
the necessity of self-justification. The substance of anti-Jewish 
polemics would have remained ; it would simply have lost its pole- 


3 


mic tone. This fact explains a remarkable feature of the polemics 
which characterizes it throughout. It shows itself, in fact, almost 
entirely regardless of the Jews themselves, and though cast in the 
form of polemics against them, seems to be aimed far less at them 
than at an entirely different public. The persuasion of the Jews, 
their refutation for the purpose of winning them, seems to be the 
last consideration with the author. Of all the anti-Jewish dialogues 
of which we know, but three (the dialogue of Simon and Theophilus 
being counted as a reproduction of that of Pa-iscus and Jason) 
result in the conversion of the Jew. In the remainder, whether the 
Jew plays his réle throughout, as in Justin’s dialogue with Trypho, 
or whether he drops entirely from the scene before the completion 
of the work, as in our present dialogue, he is at best but a lay 
figure, a‘sort of artistic setting. The artificial character runs in 
fact through all these dialogues. The real opponent of the Chris- 
tian is not the Jew but the unbeliever in general, as the Christian 
imagines him, that is, his apology is directed not toward the Jewish 
nation merely, but toward the whole non-Christian world. This 
characteristic emphasizes itself more and more as time advances. 
From the speech of Peter on the day of Pentecost, when the Jews 
were addressed and the apology for Christianity was directed to 
them alone, to the dialogues and treatises of subsequent centuries is 
a great step. As the Jewish nation would not accept Christianity, 
Christianity must break with it, and that it did right early. And as 
it extended itself in the heathen world the Jews became a factor of 
ever decreasing importance. The artificial character of which we 
have spoken is excellently illustrated by a passage in our dialogue 
which states the author’s purpose in composing it—or rather that of 
the latest editor in revising it: ‘* We have quoted these few things 
from many contained in the Holy Prophets for the sake of confirm- 
ing the faith of us Christians, and as a, rebuke, to the Jews’ pride 
and hardness of heart.” With this passage are to be compared the 
words of Isidore, in the introduction to his work Contra Judeos, 
in which, while the refutation of the Jews is to be sure mentioned, 
it is looked upon as a matter of secondary importance. But in these 
two passages it is not the defense of Christianity over against the 
heathen world that is emphasized, but rather the confirmation of 
the faith of the believers themselves. In that age it could not, of 
course, be otherwise. That which had begun in the time of the 
first disciples as actual polemics was continued as a confirmation for 


4 


believers after the urgent necessity for polemics had ceased. This 
is but the history of Christian apologetics in general. Arguments 
which have been forged in the heat of battle to be used as weapons 
against assailants are one by one beaten into plowshares for the culti- 
vation of the conquered territory. The fact which has been empha- 
sized assists us in estimating properly the historical importance of the 
whole class of works with which we are concerned. Is the Jew but 
a lay figure, we realize at once that we can learn little from these 
works as to the actual relations between Jews and Christians. 
Polemics which would be continued, even if the personal object of 
attack vanished, will mirror very imperfectly the real position of 
that antagonist. In fact, if we wish to learn the actual attitude of 
the Jews toward Christianity we must seek elsewhere than in the 
Christian works which have been directed against them. his fact, 
which lies in the nature of the case, is well illustrated by the actual 
procedure of the Jewish figure in all of our dialogues. For the most 
part, his réle is simply to assist the Christian in his demonstration 
by suggesting just such points, and asking just such questions, as 
furnish the needed steps in the discussion of the latter. He rarely 
impedes the demonstration in the slightest degree. This irrelevancy 
is particularly noticeable in the opening paragraph of our dialogue, 
in which the Jew is made to object to the Christian’s worship of 
images, as if it could be of any possible consequence to the Chris- 
tian church of that age, what the Jews might think of their prac- 
tice. This section, of course, is intended as a defense of the prac- 
tice over against the attacks of iconoclastic Christians, with whom 
the strife was then raging. The historical value of this class of 
works is greatly diminished by this general consideration. We can 
seek ut most only for occasional notices of the contemporary exter- 
nal condition of the Jews, such as the references in the present work 
to the Christian occupation of the Jews’ sacred places, ete.’ Of the 
real attitude of the Jews toward the Christians, of the nature of 
their polemics against Christianity, if they still troubled themselves 
with such polemics, these works tell us nothing. 

During the early years of Christianity the Old Testament was 
the only book of oracles for Christians as well as for Jews. To it 
and it alone could they appeal for a written warrant for their 
teaching. They mast find in it then, not simply prophecies of the 


‘The work of Thaddeus Pelusiota (see next paragraph) furnishes a few 
curious and interesting historic details; of which at some future time. 


ὃ 


external life of the individual Jesus, but also the whole plan of sal- 
vation as understood by them. It must, in fact, be their Gospel,’ 
and what Christ and his apostles taught must be found taught 
there too. The part which the Old Testament played in the early 
church was thus prodigious. Had Christ come with ἃ written Gos- 
pel in his hand, as Mohammed came with the Koran, all would 
have been different. As it was, Jews and Christians had but one 
book, in which the Jews read one thing, the Christians quite another. 
But as in course of time Christianity came into possession of its own 
independent book, as the writings of the disciples began to circu- 
late and to be looked upon as possessing divine authority, the state 
of affairs was changed. The church was no longer confined to the 
Old Testament. And yet, though the church had by this time 
broken completely its Jewish bonds and had become universal in 
spirit and in principle, though it was composed largely of Gentiles, to 
whom Judaism was far from sacred, still the Old Testament had dur- 
ing the earlier years gained, under the necessities of the case, so com- 
pletely the stamp of a Christian book, and under Christian interpre- 
tation had lost so completely its Jewish character, that it was pre- 
served as a most necessary part of the Scripture canon of the 
church. It is to the necessity laid upon the early church to make 
of it a Christian book, that we owe its existence to-day in the canon. 
Later centuries, with their apostolic works and with their independ- 
ence over against Judaism, would never have felt the need of so trans- 
forming it. But the process thus begun under necessity was most 
naturally continued after the necessity was past. Once given the 
Old Testament as a Christian book no generation of the church could 
be foolish enough to throw aside such a treasure. Once established 
the practice of reading it in a spiritual sense, its inexhaustibleness 
assured its permanent use, 

Christian apologetics is of three kinds: that which appeals to 
prophecy, that which appeals to reason, and that which appeals to 
history—not to imply, of course, that these three kinds are always 
kept distinct in practice. The original relation of Christianity to 
Judaism necessarily gave to the earliest Christian apologetics the 
form of an appeal to prophecy. But as the church began to face 
more and more the heathen world, which had neither the oppor- 
tunity nor the inclination to examine the Jewish Scriptures and to 
test the proofs of the Christians drawn from this source, as in fact 


‘Cf, Hatnack, Zeate und Untersuchungen, Vol. I. Heft 3, p. 57. 


6 


it faced a world with whom this common ground was wanting, it 
had recourse necessarily to the second form of apologetics. Chris- 
tianity must be shown to be rational, not simply ordained by the God 
of the Jewish Scriptures. This second form begins with the works 
of the Greek apologists of the second century. But even here it 
was not only external pressure, but also internal intellectual need, 
which gave rise to this kind of thinking and writing. Christians 
sought confirmation in their faith, justification for their belief. 
Jewish Christians had sought it in the sanction of the national God, 
whose word, recorded in their national Scriptures, was law to them. 
Greek Christians, trained in the atmosphere of philosophy, sought 
it in the sanction of their reason. But the second kind of apolo- 
getics by no means drove out the first. The use of the Hebrew 
prophets for the confirmation of the Christian faith was not con- 
fined to Jewish Christians. Begun by them, it was taken up and 
pursued eagerly by the heathen converts. But to them the Old 
‘Testament played a different rdle. To Jewish Christians it was in 
and of itself the word of God. Its prophecies had a worth, there- 
fore, independent of the life of Christ. To heathen Christians it 
was the word of God only because it prophesied of Christ. To the 
latter, therefore, it was at first valuable only in so far as it contained 
predictions and types of the Messiah and his church. By them was 
felt, therefore, far more keenly than by Jewish Christians, the need 
of finding for every part of the Old Testament a correspondence in 
the life of Christ, and it isto them, more than to Jewish Christians, 
that we owe its transformation from a historical book to a thesau- 
rus of divine oracles. Jewish Christians would have remained 
satisfied to find in the historical books national history, in the 
prophetical books, to a certain extent, national prophecies. It was 
not necessary for the life of Christ to exhaust the whole mass of 
Old Testament predictions. But to the heathen the Old Testament 
as a national book could have no meaning. It must not only 
include Christianity, it must be wholly Christian. 

An argument from prophecy has always had great weight with 
the human mind. There enters into it so prominent an element of 
supernaturalness as to give it a peculiar force. The gentile Chris- 
tian church found itself in possession of books written centuries 
before the advent of their Christ, which, as the Jewish Christians 
had already pointed out to them, foretold a Messiah and a Messianic 
kingdom identical with their Messiah and his kingdom. They 


7 


did not need to ask as to the divinity of these books; they did not 
need to accept them first as Jewish Scriptures. They accepted 
them at once as divine and as Christian books because they prophe- 
sied of Christ. To them they were at first that and nothing more. 
Before them then lay the task, undertaken with a very different 
motive from that of the Jewish Christians, of making the two 
elements, prophecy and fulfillment, fit not simply in part but 
completely, of co-ordinating them throughout. With the Jewish 
Christians it was enough to prove from the Scriptures that Christ 
was the promised Messiah of the Jews. To the heathen Christians 
that could of itself have no meaning. ΤῸ them Christ was not the 
Jewish Messiah but the Saviovr of the world and wouid have 
remained such had there been no Old Testament. They gladly 
adopted the latter because, spiritualized as they spiritualized it, it 
proved to them the antiquity of their religion and furnished them 
in its prophecies, so wonderfully fulfilled, welcome testimony to 
the divine origin of their religion. 

These two kinds of apologetics then run alongside one another 
—each playing an important part in the literary activity of the 
early church. It is noticeable, however, that they are usually in 
the earler centuries kept quite distinct. We have apologies of the 
first class and apologies of the second class, but not combinations 
of the two kinds. As an example of the first, for instance, may be 
cited Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, of the second, his 
apologies ; so Tertullian’s Adversus Judwos on the one hand, and 
his apology on the other. This must of necessity have been the 
mode of procedure in the earliest generations, when the two classes 
of assailants, the Jews and the heathen, were so sharply distinct. 
To represent to the Jews the rationality of Christianity was useless. 
To them only the Scriptures had weight. To appeal to the heathen 
from the Scriptures, when they knew nothing of the Old Testa- 
ment, would have been absurd. In the first generations of Chris- 
tianity, Judaism played an important réle in the ranks of its antag- 
onists. In spite, therefore, of what has been said as to the necessary 
inward impulse toward apologetics, it is certain that at first there 
was felt very forcibly the external need also. The Jews were a real 
and formidable enemy then, and they were besides a people among 
whom the church hoped to propagate Christianity. The continued 
independent use of the first class of apologetics, even after the 
second had begun, is therefore not to be wondered at. It is further 


8 


quite natural that this class of apologetics should continue to bear 
he name Adversus Jud@os long after the Jews had ceased to play 
a part of any consequence among the enemies of the church. The 
two classes began as Adv. Jude@os and Adv, Nationes, the one bibli- 
eal, the other rational. It was most natural that all works in 
which Old Testament prophecies were exhibited as proofs of the 
truth of Christianity should continue to be thrown into that form, 
even after they had ceased to be directed against the Jews them- 
selves. In order to give force and yividness—still more in order to 
give, so to speak, an excuse for a composition of this kind, there 
must be supposed an opponent contradicting the truth of the Chris- 
tian’s conclusions, and who else could this be than the Jew ? And 
this must have been true also of works not cast in the form of a 
dialogue. Wherever Old Testament prophecies are appealed to, 
there the Jew is naturally thought of as the one who disputes the 
Christian’s conclusions. To justify any apology there must be an 
opponent real or imagined. If there is no actual one, and the work 
is written simply to confirm the faith of believers, then an opponent 
must be imagined to exist—in the present case of course a Jew. 
We know that before many centuries had passed the Jews had 
dropped entirely out of consideration among the Christians in most 
parts of the empire, that the church no longer feared them and no 
longer came into actual conflict with them. And yet the nominal 
apologies addressed to the Jews continue even down to the end of 
the middle ages, their artificial character of course strongly marked. 
Another point must be noticed in connection with this class of 
apologetics. Prophecy is the correlate of history. What prophecy 
foretells, history fulfills. A work devoted, therefore, to the demon- 
stration of the truth of Christianity upon the basis of prophecy must 
confine itself to the realm of history. Dogmaties can properly. play 
no part in such a work, for it is absurd to speak of a dogma as being 
prophesied, when the dogma is itself ostensibly drawn from the very 
book which prophesies. If the dogma embodies the assertion of a 
fact which has occurred or is supposed to have occurred in history, 
the predictions which may be cited in proof of its truth are cited of 
course for the fact as such, not for the dogma about the fact. And 
such dogmas as have to do with eternal truths can of course have 
no relation to prophecy. Dogmas vary from age to age. But in 
apologetics based upon prophecy we have two unchangeable factors : 
Old Testament predictions, New Testament fulfillment. In the 


9 


generations before the formation of the New Testament canon the 
second factor was, to be sure, variable. The traditions as to the life 
of Christ were not yet absolutely fixed, and opportunity was given 
to alter and add to them at will, a process of which we can detect 
many traces in the writings of the second century. But after the 
New Testament canon was established this process ceased. The 
factors were fixed, and there remained only the discovery on the 
part of sharp-sighted and keen-witted men of new coincidences be- 
tween the two. ‘The framework within which all such search must 
proceed was unalterabiy settled. This is the natural cause of the 
stereotyped character of this class. of apologetics, which is very 
marked throughout. It is not surprising that in a work of the mid- 
dle ages devoted to prophecy and its fulfillment we should find the 
same general matter as in a work of the earliest centuries. It could 
not be otherwise. The contents of the life of Christ had long been 
fixed, and with that prophecy had chiefly to do. (The fulfillment 
of prophecy in the later history of the church is for the present left 
out of consideration.) The ordinary marks of the doctrinal views of 
the author, from which we are accustomed to judge as to the age of 
his work, we have no right to expect. If they occur, they are mis- 
nomers and inconsistencies in the work. At the same time they do 
occur, illogically, very frequently.’ In fact, the works in which an 
indication of date cannot be gathered from their doctrinal tone are 
largely in the minority. But in spite of this the natural character 
of these works is archaic. The theological passages do not form 
their chief characteristic. 

We have spoken of two classes of apologetics. ΤῸ these is to be 
added the third, already enumerated : apologetics based upon his- 
tory ; that is, apologetics in which the history of the church and of 
its enemies is appealed to as a proof of its divine origin. This class 
is, of course, of later growth. Only when Christianity had a his- 
tory behind it, could it make use of that history as an argument. 
Strictly speaking, this is of course an appeal to reason. ‘The pre- 
servation of the church in the midst of persecution, its continued 
prosperity, its benefits to the human race—these were so many 


‘Much oftener than one might gather from Harnack’s remarks. Besides 
the Pseudo-Gregorian Testimonia which he mentions, the dialogue of Gregen- 
tius with Herbano the Jew is permeated with the theological atmosphere of the 
sixth century, and the same general fact is true of many later works, especially 
of the scholastics. 


10 


appeals to the reason of man for the divine origin of Christianity. 
But in the present instance the history of the church served a 
double purpose in the realm of apologetics. Not only did it furnish 
of itself a direct argument, but in fulfilling Scripture predictions it 
increased the sum of proofs from prophecy. ‘The Old Testament 
was found to contain not only prophecies of Christ, but also of his 
church, and indeed of subsequent world history in large propor- 
tions. In this way the argument from history by itself, and the 
argument from prophecy fulfilled in it became closely joined and 
were continually used together. This was more and more the case 
as time advanced. ‘The numerical predictions of Daniel play a réle 
of constantly increasing prominence. And at the same time, partly 
in connection with these predictions and partly independent of 
them, the contrasts were drawn with ever more minuteness of 
detail between the prosperity of the Christians and the ill-fortune 
of their Jewish adversaries. The dark lot of the latter formed an 
excellent background against which to display the brilliant history 
of the former. Works in which this style of argument is prominent 
gain a degree of vividness and life-likeness, which makes it seem 
that they must be directed against real Jewish opponents and be 
sprung from the actual heat of conflict, and yet we are not safe in 
drawing this conclusion upon this ground alone. But these histori- 
cal sections will at the same time usually be found to give us wel- 
come data for fixing the age of the works in which they oceur, 
The subject can scarcely be developed without contemporaneous 
events leaving their impress, and at this point we must look for 
most light as to the composition of the various works, and also for 
the most matter of interest, because matter least stereotyped. 

The literary form of the works Adversus Judaos is threefold. 
We have dialogues between Christians and Jews; we have regular 
treatises in the form of apologies, or of attacks, or of both ; and we 
have Testimonia, which are but a massing together of Old Testa- 
ment predictions, arranged according to the events which they fore- 
tell. The first is a favorite form, <A glance at the list given in § 2 
will show that quite a proportion of all anti-Jewish works are 
dialogues. It was a form suggested by the very nature of the 
material. In no way could the force of the Old Testament pre- 
dictions be better brought out than by supposing their proper 
interpretation disputed by the Jew, who is then obliged to yield his 
view to that of the Christian, ‘The nature of the subject neces- 


11 


sitated a constant change from one topic to another which was 
peculiarly fitted to dialogistic discourse.’ For the explanation of 
the prevalence of this form in anti-Jewish works it is, therefore, 
unnecessary to assume the influence of the dialogues of Justin and 
Trypho, or of Papiscus and Jason. It is plain, of course, that we 
cannot conclude the actual existence of the parties named in the 
dialogue. They may be, as they probably most often are, fictitious 
characters. 

The second form mentioned treats the subject in essentially the 
same manner as the first. The formal introduction of the two 
contending parties is merely an externality which hardly affects the 
disposition of the material. Many of the regular treatises could be 
transformed into dialogues by the mere insertion of names. The 
similarity between the two classes is so great that the one form may 
pass quite easily into the other, even within the same work ; as, for 
instance, in the work we are to consider, in which the form of the 
dialogue disappears entirely long before its conclusion. 

The third form mentioned is quite different from the other two. 
Its representatives are the Zestimonia of Cyprian and of Pseudo- 
Gregory. It is an illustration of what has been said of the natural 
tendency to throw all works which deal with prophecy into the form 
of anti-Jewish polemics, that even these Testimonia, which in form 
are the farthest possible from polemical works, still bear the title 
Adv. Judeos. But it must be remarked that the disiiweruntilens char- 
acteristic of all the three classes wnich we have been αἰ τηνι is 
not the fact that they are formally directed against the Jews—this, 
though so universal, is but an accident, not an essential property upon 
which the classification depends. The essential characteristic is the 
use of Old Testament prophecies. And thus, though the lost Zcloge 
of Melito, for instance, were not, so far as we know, brought formally 
into any connection with the Jews, they nevertheless belong to the 
general class of works under consideration, just as much as the 
Testimonia of Cyprian and of Pseudo-Gregorv, whose titles expressly 
name the Jews. ‘They will therefore a included in our list of 
anti-Jewish works. At the same time there are, on the other hand, 
works against the Jews which are purely polemical, being devoted 
solely to an exhibition of the wickedness of the Jews, and-contain- 
ing no clement of apology for Christianity, no attempt to prove its 

* Of. the preface to the Dialogus Gualteri et Balduini (Migne, ccix. 426), and 
the passage quoted from ‘Richard’s work De Emmanuele libri duo (infra p. 26). 


12 


truth in any respect. Such writings have no connection with the 
class of works under consideration, although the word ‘‘ Jews ” ap- 
pears in their titles. They will, therefore, be omitted in our list.’ 


§ 2. List of Anti-Jewish Works. 


The following list is designed to contain all ancient and 
medieval Greek and Latin works of the class under consideration 
with whose titles the writer is acquainted, whether extant or non- 
extant. He has endeavored to make it as exhaustive as possible, 
but by no means pretends to claim for it absolute completeness, for 
he is well aware that some works may have escaped his notice., 
The list is, of course, not intended to include writings upon other 
subjects which deal with the Jews only indirectly or in passing. 
Such works are legion. Anti-Jewish polemics are scattered through 
innumerable dogmatic treatises, homilies, and especially commen- 
taries. For Latin works the writer has been aided in his search by 
the subject index of Migne’s Patrologia Latina. For the Greek 
Patrology unfortunately no such index as yet exists.” 


I. Greek works. 


1. Dialogue of Papiscus and Jason. 

This dialogue is no longer extant, but we can obtain an excel- 
lent idea of its general character from the Dialogue of Simon and 
Theophilus which Harnack (Texte und Untersuchungen, Bd. L, 
Heft 3, pp. 1-36) has proved almost beyond the shadow of a doubt 
to be a free reproduction of it. For asummary of what we know 
in regard to the original work see ‘did. p. 116 ff., and for a com- 
ages of it with our dialogue see § 5 below. 

Justin Martyr : Dialogue with Trypho. 

3, Melito: Heloge. 

This work, which is no ibiigte extant, was not directed against 
the Jews, but it may be mentioned in this connection because it 


' The writer has in mind particularly certain works by Agobard ; de insolentia 
Judworum (Migne, civ. 69-76), de baptismo Judeworum (ib, 101-106), de cavendo 
convictu et Socielate Judaica (107-114). The epistle Severt Lpiscopt Majori- 
censis de Judeis (Migne, xx, 731-746) has nothing to do either with polemics 
or apologetics, but is simply an account of the conversion of a multitude of 
Jews in the island of Majorca. 

* The list given in Fabricius-Harles, VI. 748 ff. is very incomplete, but has 
been of especial use in directing the writer's attention to works as yet unpub- 
lished. 


13 


contained ‘‘ extracts from the law and the prophets concerning the 
Saviour and our entire faith,” and thus seems to have been a work 
of the same nature as the Testimonia of Cyprian and Pseudo-Greg- 
ory. The following passage from a fragment of a work of ‘‘ Meliton 
the Bishop On Faith” (given by Cureton, Spic. Syriac, p. 52 ff.), 
whether it has reference to the Hcloge or not, at least points to a 
work of the same kind, and to one which was highly developed in 
the details of Christ’s life: “‘We have made collections from the 
Law and the Prophets relative to those things which have been 
declared respecting our Lord Jesus Christ, that we may prove to 
your love that he is perfect Reason, the Word of God; who was 
begotten before the hght; who was creator together with the 
Father ; who was the fashioner of man; who was all in all; who 
among the patriarchs was patriarch; who in the law was law ; 
among priests chief priest; amongst kings governor; among 
prophets the prophet ; among the angeis archangel ; in the Voice 
the word ; among spirits spirit; in the Father the Son; in God, 
God the King forever and ever; who was with Noah, Abram .. . 
(etc.) ; who in David and the prophets foretold his own sufferings ; 
who was incarnate in the Virgin; who was born in Bethlehem ; 
who was wrapped in swaddling clothes in the manger; who was 
seen of the shepherds ; who was glorified of the angels; who was 
worshiped of the Magi; who was pointed out by John; who assem- 
bled the apostles; who preached the kingdom; who healed the 
maimed ; who gave light to the blind ; who raised the dead ; who 
appeared in the temple ; who was not believed in by the people ; 
who was betrayed by Judas; who was laid hold on by the priests ; 
who was condemned by Pilate ; who was transfixed in the flesh ; who 
was hanged upon the tree ; who was buried in the earth ; who rose 
from the dead ; who appeared to the apostles ; who ascended into 
heaven ; who sitteth on the right hand of the Father; who is the 
rest of those that have departed, the recoverer of those that were 
lost, the light of those who were in darkness, the deliverer of those 
who are captives, the guide of those who have gone astray, the 
refuge of the afflicted, the bridegroom of the church, the charioteer 
of the cherubim, the captain of the angels, God who is of God, the 
Son who is of the Father, Jesus Christ the King forever and ever. 
Amen.” Otto and others hold that this fragment is actually from a 
work of Melito, but Harnack (Texte und Untersuchungen, Vol. I., 
Heft 1, p. 268) considers it an extract from a work of Ireneus. 


14 


4. Miltiades: Adversus Judeos. 

Of this work, which is no longer extant, we know only through 
Eusebius, who mentions it in A. #. ν. 17. 5, and informs us that 
it existed in two volumes.’ 

5. Fragmentum incogniti operis adversus Judeos. 

Under this title Mai (Seript. vet. nova coll. viii. 2. 26) gives a 
brief fragment in Greek which bears the name of Sylvester, and 
is printed in Migne (Patr. Lat. viii. 814) among the works of 
Pope Sylvester. The fragment is too brief to permit much of a 
judgment as to the character of the work, or even to make it cer- 
tain that it is from a work against the Jews. It is devoted to an 
illustration of the two natures in Christ. 

6. Hippolytus : Demonstratio adversus'Judeos. 

Only a fragment exists (Migne, Patr. Gree. x. 787-794), which 
is devoted thiefly to the passion of Christ and to the agency of the 
Jews in it, with prophecies foretelling it and the consequent 
punishment of the Jews. One passage is quite similar to a pas- 
sage in our dialogue (see p. 90), but no literary relationship between 
the two works can be constituted from the fragment which we have. 
According to Bunsen (/Hippolytus and his Age, Vol. I., p. 265) 
“The anonymous author of the ‘ Acta Martyrum,’ gives in Appen- 
dix ILI. (pp. 449-488), the text of an old Latin translation οὗ ἃ 
considerable part of the fragment preserved to us in Greek. He 
had discovered it among the spurious works ascribed to Cyprian. 
The title is ‘ Demonstratio adversus Judeos.’ It begins exactly 
with the first words of our Greek fragment, which cannot have 
been the opening of the address, but was probably the beginning of 
the peroration. The Greek text forms the first two chapters of this 
very remarkable fragment. What follows (ch. 3-7, pp. 452b-458) 
is far more interesting than the part preserved in the Greek 
text. The author no longer appeals to sacred texts of their pro- 
phets; he speaks to their hearts, he appeals to the spirit in them. 
‘The eye of the mind,’ he says, ‘is the spirit ; through him things 
spiritual are seen ; if therefore you are spiritual, you understand 


' Eusebius (/7, &. IV. 27) mentions among the writings of Apolinarius 
of Hierapolis a work πρὸς Ἰουδαίους πρῶτον καὶ δεύτερον. ‘The words 
however are wanting in many manuscripts and also in Rufinus and in Jerome, 
and are therefore to be regarded as a later insertion. Fabricius mentions the 
work in his list, but with the notice of Eusebius shown to be spurious no trace 
of the existence of such a writing remains, 


15 


heavenly things. For like knows (understands) what is like to it.’ 
These words may be considered as the theme of the whole. Hence 
we see that we have not an attack upon the Jews in this treatise, 
but an address to them, an appeal to their conscience and intellect. 
The character of the treatise is that of an eloquent writer, who had 
studied Plato, and who had not only a deep Christian intellect, but 
also a heart full of Christ, and of love to his brethren.” Harnack 
(Op. cit. p. 75) refers to Bunsen’s notice, but says that he knows 
nothing about the Latin fragment mentioned. I have not myself 
seen it, and know only what Bunsen states. 

ἡ. Diodorus Tarsensis : Contra Judeos. 

This work, which is no longer extant, is mentioned in the list 
given by Fabricius-Harles, Vol. VI., p. 747. Suidas (who is there 
referred to) gives a list of the writings of Diodorus (art. Diodorus), 
upon the authority of Θεόδωρος ἀναγνώστης ἐν τῇ Exndn- 
σιαστιπκῇὴ Iotopia. The list includes the Contra Judwos. 

8. Hieronymus Grecus: Dialogus Christiani cum Judeo de 
Trinitate. 

In Migne, xl. 847-859. A dialogue of an entirely theological 
character, as indicated by the title. The Old Testament is used 
only as a source of proof texts for the doctrine of the Trinity, and 
not as a book of prophecies. 

9. Testimonia adversus Jud@os. 

Although this work was ascribed to Gregory of Nyssa and 
printed by Migne (xlvi. 193-234) among his writings, it was 
composed long after his time. It is of the same general nature as 
the Testimonia of Cyprian, giving detailed prophecies of the life of 
Christ, but in its first paragraph is quite theological, containing the 
fully developed doctrine of the Trinity. For further details in 
regard to this work and its relation to our dialogue, see § 5 below. 

10, Chrysostom: <Adversus Judeos et Gentiles demonstratio 
quod Christus sit Deus. 

In Migne’s Patr. Grec. xlviii. 813-838. The first part of 
this work is composed chiefly of Old Testament prophecies, fore- 
telling that the Christ to come was to be a God, and predicting the 
manner and piace of his advent, the commission of the apostles, the 
casting out of the Jews, the last judgment, etc. The latter part is 
devoted to a brief account of the prosperity of the church and of 
the attacks of various emperors upon the Christians. 

11. Chrysostom: Adversus Judeos Orationes, viii. 


16 


In Migne, 7b. 843-892. Eight long orations devoted rather to 
positive attacks upon the Jews than to the defense of Christianity. 
The predictions in regard to the life of Christ play but a small part, 
while those in regard to the conduct and condition of the Jews are 
dwelt upon at great length. 

12. Cyril of Alexandria: Libri de Synagoge defectu. 

This work is no longer extant, but Migne (Patr. Gree. |xxvi. 
1421-1424) gives a brief fragment upon the change of the name 
Abram to Abraham, which perhaps formed a part of the lost work. 

13. Basil of Seleucia: Contra Juda@os de Salvatoris adventu 
demonstratio (Oratio xxxviii.). 

In Migne, 7b, Ixxxy. 400-425. ‘This work is devoted chiefly to 
a numerical calculation as to the time of the Messiah’s advent and 
the destruction of Jerusalem, resulting in the proof that Jesus is 
the Messiah. As a consequence the prophecies of Daniel play a 
large part in the work. 

14. Philip of Side: Acta Disputationis de Christo in Perside 
inter Christianos, Gentiles ac Juda@os habite. 

This work, or a fragment of it, exists in a manuscript in the 
Imperial Library at Vienna. Through the kindness of a friend I 
have been furnished with the following notice taken from the 
catalogue of the library: ‘* Philippi, ab urbe Pamphiliw Sida, ubi 
natus fuit, cognominati Sidetw, qui seeculo post Christum quarto 
S. Joannis Chrisostomi fuit presbyter et syncellus, acta disputationis 
de Christo in Perside inter Christianos, Gentiles ac Judwos habitaz 
cui ipse interfuit ; excerpta ex amplissimo ipsius opere Historiz 
Christiane in triginta sex libros diviso, et quidem ex eo jam memo- 
rate Historie libro, quo egit de nativitate Christi et de Magis.” 
I am informed that the Acta Disputationis fill only the first two 
leaves of the manuscript. 

15. Gregentius of Taphar: Disputatio cum Herbano Judeo. 

In Migne, Ixxxvi, 681-784. <A very elaborate account of a 
dialogue which took place between the Archbishop Gregentius and 
the Jew Herbanus, in the presence of a vast concourse of Jews and 
Christians, the king, the senate, ete. The dialogue continues for 
four days and ends with the conversion and baptism of Herbanus 
and 5,000,000 other Jews, comprising all the Jews in the kingdom, 
The conversion is not accomplished however by the arguments of 
the archbishop, but by the miraculous appearance of Christ himself 
upon the clouds. The work displays a highly developed theology 


ΤΊ 


and christoiogy, and abounds in abstruse discussions upon doctrinal 
points. At the same time the argument for the Messiahship of 
Jesus and for the truth of Christianity drawn from prophecy plays 
a prominent part and appears in quite a developed form. 

The work closes with an account of the death of Gregentius, and 
thérefore does not pretend to be his own composition. It is cer- 
tainly later than his time. 

16. Διάλεξις κατὰ Ἰουδαίων. 

Bandini in his Catalogus Bibl. Medicee Laurentiane, tom. 1., 
p. 165, has given a brief portion of this work, which is too short to 
enable much of a judgment to be formed in regard to it. It is not 
in the form of a dialogue, however, as Harnack says (Op. cit. p. 75). 
The purpose of the work is stated in the first sentence to be to prove 
to the Jew from the Old Testament that the Saviour Christ was 
prophesied of old and taught to be divine. It thus ranks itself with 
the general class of works under consideration. 

1%. Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila. 

See Mai, Spic. Rom. ix. p. xii. sq.,and Nova Bibl. vi. il. p. 
537 sq. Mai gives only the beginning and end of this dialogue, 
from a codex of the Patmos library, but it is enough to prove that 
it is much later than the time of Cyril, when it pretends to have 
been written. Many theological expressions betray a later date. 
The Jew is converted and receives baptism after the dialogue is con- 
cluded. 

18. Stephen of Bostra: Contra Judeos. 

This work is no longer extant. We know of it only through 
John of Damascus, who in his Third Oration on Images (Migne, 
Patr. Gr. xciv. 1376) gives two brief quotations from it on the 
subject of image worship. We know nothing as to the nature of 
the work as a whole. 

19. Anastasius Abbas: Adversus Judeos Disputatio. 

The Greek original of this work was first published by Mai 
(Script. Vet. nova collect. vil. 207-244) and is contained in Migne’s 
Patr. Gr., \xxxix. 1203-1282. A Latin translation, less full than 
the Greek, had already been made by Turrianus and published 
by Canisius in his Antig. lect., tom. IL, part iii., p. 12, ed. Bas- 
nagii (according to Mai, 7d. p. 207 note), The close of the work is 
wanting. For a detailed description of the work and a comparison 
of it with our dialogue, see § 5 below. 

20. Lepannge of Neapolis in Cyprus : Sermo contra Judeos. 


18 


In Migne, Χο, 1597-1609. The work is devoted exclusively 
to the subject of image worship. It is throughout an argument ad 
hominem. It is first maintained against the Jews that God com- 
manded Moses to make the cherubim, etc., and then it is declared 
that the Christians do not worship the wood of the cross itself, but, 
through it and images of all kinds, God and Christ. Instances are 
drawn from the Old Testament of the same kind of worship, and 
the instance of Jacob and Joseph (given also in our dialogue § 1) 
is cited, but with a slight variation in form (see the notes, p. 85). 
This line of argument is the same as that pursued by the Christian 
in our dialogue. The work bears the form of a discourse, but 
oceasionally a Jew and a Christian are introduced as speaking with- 
out any apparent reasons, 

21. Leontius of Cyprus: Contra Jude@os. 

In Migne, 7b., 1609-1612. A fragment, extant only in Latin, 
of a lost work ascribed to the same author. ‘There is no hint in the 
fragment itself as to its author. 

It contains prophecies from Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah, ete., which 
foretell the nature of the Messianic kingdom, its peacefulness and 
blessedness, and which the author applies to the Christian church. 

22. Theodorus Abucara: Dissertatio cum Judo (Opuscula X.). 

In Migne, xevil. 1529-1534. <A brief dialogue which is devoted 
to proving that the Scriptures are to be interpreted of Christ and 
the Christians, and not literally of the Jews. 

23, Euthymius Zigabenus : Contra Hebreos. 

In Migne, exxx. 257-305. The first part of the work is 
devoted chiefly to quotations from the Old Testament in proof of 
the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, etc., and in propheey of his 
birth, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, the church of the Gentiles, 
ete. The remainder of the work contains extracts from the orations 
of Chrysostom against the Jews, from Leontius, John of Damascus 
and anonymous works. 

24. Thaddeus Pelusiota: Contra Jud@os. 

This work has not yet been published. It is extant in three 
Greek manuscripts in the National Library at Paris (Cod. Gree. 
887, 1285, Suppl. Gree. 120) and has been transcribed by the writer 
with a view to possible publication. It is of considerable extent, 
perhaps twice as long as the Dialogue of Papiscus and Philo, and 
dates from the year 1265, The author, Thaddeus Pelusiota, is an 
otherwise unknown man, The occurrence of the name “ Pelusiota” at 


19 


this late date is very surprising. The work is largely devoted to the 
miseries of the Jews, all of which are shown to have been prophesied 
in the Old Testament, and all of which are represented as a punish- 
ment for the nation’s rejection of Christ. It is urged that the 
present scattered condition of the Jews is the last captivity foretold 
in the prophets, a captivity which shall never end because no end 
has been foretold ; and it is maintained that the sin which deserves 
such an endless captivity for its punishment must have been greater 
than any that had been committed before the previous captivities. 
A long passage upon the contrast between the glorious condition of 
the Christians and the miserable condition of the Jews resembles 
closely the passage upon the same subject in our present dialogue. 
The work is very interesting, and in the main far stronger than 
most anti-Jewish writings. The author was evidently a learned and 
an able man. His historical references are numerous and many of 
them curious. The work opens with a passage some pages in 
length from Josephus’ Jewish War, and the works of Eusebius, 
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Cyril and others are frequently quoted. 

25. Andronicus Comnenus: Dialogus contra Judeos Christiani 
et Judar, 

This work has as yet been published only in a Latin version 
(given by Migne in his Patr. Gr., cxxxiii. 797-924), but the Greek 
original is extant in a manuscript in the Imperial Library at Vienna 
(Cod. Greec. 255) according to Lambecius, 2d ed., Vol. V. p. 355 ff. 
It is in the form of a dialogue, is of great length, and is divided 
into sixty-four chapters. It isin part very theological, as for instance 
where it discusses the Trinity, the generation of the Son, the con- 
substantiality of the Spirit, etc. Other parts are devoted to the 
prophecies fulfilled in Christ. The Old Testament is used extensively 
throughout. 

26. Georgius of Cyprus: Contra Marcum ex Jud. Christianum. 

In Migne, exlii. 247-252. This brief tract is purely theological 
and has nothing to do with prophecy. 

27. Theophanes of Nice: Contra Judeos libri vi. 

This work has not yet been published. It is extant in three 
manuscripts in the Paris Library (Cod. Gree. 778, 1249, 1293). 

28. John Cantacuzenus : Adversus Jude@os libri novem. 

Likewise unedited and extant in three Paris manuscripts (Cod. 
Greece. 1243, 1275. Suppl. Gree. 120). It is about twice as long 
as the work of Thaddeus mentioned above. 


20 


29. Nicolaus Hydruntinus: Dialogus cum Judeo. 

Likewise unedited and extant in Par. Cod. Gree., 1255. 

30. Mattheeus Hieromonachus: Libri V. in Judaos. 

Likewise unedited and extant in Par. Cod. Gree., 1293, fol. 
119-240, also, according to Fabricius, ‘‘ in Bodleiana codice Baroce. 
XXX1l1.” 

31. Gennadius of Constantinople : Dialogus contra Judeos. 

Likewise unedited and extant in Par, Cod. Grece., 1293, fol. 
1-54, and, according to Fabricius, in ‘‘ MSS. in variis bibliothecis.” 


11. Latin works. 


1. Tertullian: Adversus Judeos. 

In Oehler’s edition of Tertullian’s works Vol. II. pp. 701-741. 
The carnality, particularity and temporality of Judaism over against 
the spirituality, universality and eternity of Christianity are dwelt 
upon in the first part of this work. The numerical prophecies of 
Daniel are then considered at length, and a prominent part is given 
to a detailed exhibition of the fulfillment of prophecy in the life of 
Christ. For a comparison of the work with the Dial. of Pap. and 
Jason see Harnack, Op. cit. p. 92 ff. The work makes large use of 
Justin’s Dial. ὁ. Trypho. See further § 5, below. 

2. Cyprian: Ad Quirinum (Testimoniorum libri tres). 

In Hartel’s Cypriani opera (Script. eccles. Lat. Vind), 1. 
35-184. 

These Zestimonia consist of three books. The first two are 
composed of collections of Old Testament prophecies foretelling the 
life of Christ, the Christian church, ete., and thus belong to the 
general class of works under consideration. The third book is 
devoted to the graces, virtues, etc., of the Christian life and the sins 
to be avoided, and is composed chiefly of New Testament passages 
referring to these subjects. It therefore does not come under 
consideration in this connection. For a comparison of the work 
with the Dial. of Pap. and Jason see Harnack (Op. cit. p. 97 ff.), 
and for its relation to our dialogue see § 5, below. 

3. Pseudo-Cyprian : De Montibus Sina et Sion. 

Hartel, iii, 104-119. The spiritual compared with the temporal 
Israel, Only a limited use is made of prophecy. 

4, Pseudo-Cyprian : Adversus Jud@os, 

Ibid, 133-144. In this the idea of the casting out of the Jews 
and of the acceptance of the Gentiles is emphasized. 


Qi 


5. Celsus: Ad Vigilium Episcopum de Judaica ineredulitate. 

Also printed among the Pseudo-Cyprianic works, ibid. 119- 
132. An arraignment of the Jews for their unbelief in the face of 
the clear declarations of the prophets in regard to Christ. The 
Dialogue of Papiscus and Jason is mentioned with high praise, and 
the author announces that he has himself translated it into Latin. 
His epistle is really an introduction to the translation which he sends 
with it tothe Bishop Vigilium. The epistle belongs probably to the 
end of the fifth century (cf. Harnack, Op. cit. Bd. I., Heft I., p. 119 ff.). 

6. Augustine: Z'ractatus adv. Judeos. 

In Migne, Patr. Lat. xlii. 51-64. The subject of this tract is 
in the main the rejection of the literal and the acceptance of the 
spiritual Israel in their place. It is not in the form of a dialogue, 
but resembles one somewhat, since the objections of the Jews are 
quoted and answered one after the other. 

ἡ. Pseudo-Augustine : Contra Judewos Paganos et Arianos Sermo 
de symbolo. 

In Migne, ibid. 1117-1130. The work contains . twenty-two 
chapters, of which four are directed against the Jews. Testimonies 
for Christ are drawn from the Old and New Testaments, and also 
from profane writers and from the Sibylline books. 

8. Pseudo-Augustine: De altercatione ecclesie et synagoge 
Dialogus. 

In Migne, did. 1131-1140. <A dialogue between the church 
and the synagogue, personified as two women. The general subject 
is the same as that of the Augustinian Tractatus mentioned above, 
The synagogue confesses herself beaten at every point, and con- 
cludes ‘‘Ergo omnes ad te venerunt,” etc., which indicates the 
scope of the work. 

9, Eyagrius: Altercatio Simonis Judai et Theophili Christian. 

See Harnack’s Teate und Untersuchungen, Bd. 1., Heft 3, where 
this dialogue is shown to be a free reproduction of the lost dialogue 
of Papiscus and Jason. See also § 5, below. 

10. Maximus of Turin: Tractatus contra Jud@os. 

In Migne, lvii. 793-806. This work is, in many respects, simi- 
lar to the earlier works against the Jews, containing an attack upon 
the Jews and an argument foy the divinity of the Christ. For the 
latter a mass of Old and New Testament passages are quoted, of 
which many are found in the Testimonia of Cyprian and other 
earlier works. The tract is comparatively free from dogmatics. 


22 


11. Isidore of Seville : De fide vatholica ex Veteri et Novo Testa- 
mento contra Judwos ad Florentinam sororem suam. 

In Migne, ]xxxiii. 449-538. The work is in two books. The 
first is devoted to prophecies from the Old Testament which foretell 
the career of Christ, beginning with his generation from the Father, 
and closing with his coming to judge the .world. The details are 
drawn out with great fullness, more than fifty different events being 
shown to have been prophesied. The whole resembles closely the 
long paragraph of the Paris MS. of our Dialogue upon the same sub- 
ject. The resemblance is not such as to involve literary dependence, 
but it shows the prevalence of this kind of writing, and shows too 
that there was a large circle of subjects treated by all such writers, 
and that the texts quoted were in many cases the same. The second 
book treats in the same manner the relations of the Jews and Gen- 
tiles, including the calling of the Gentiles, the rejection of the 
Jews, etc., twenty-seven particulars being taken up one after the 
other. The whole work is intensely Biblical, being devoted exclu- 
sively to the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy in Christ and in 
his church, It is thus one of the very best examples of the kind 
of works under consideration—apologies based upon prophecy. 

12. Agobard : ELpistola de Judaicis superstitionibus. 

In Migne, civ. 77-100. This epistle can hardly be regarded as 
belonging to the class of works under consideration, since it is 
chiefly devoted to a mere account of the folly and wickedness of the 
Jews, and of their enemity against the Christians. A few prophecies 
are however quoted which are interpreted as foretelling the bad 
fortunes of Jews and the prosperity of the Christians, In so far 
therefore the work contains an argument from prophecy, and may 
thus be mentioned in this connection. Three other epistles by Ago- 
bard given by Migne do not come into consideration here. (See note 
at the close of the preceding paragraph. ) 

13. Amulo: Liber contra Judwos. 

In Migne, exvi. 141-184. This work was originally published 
under the name of Rabanus, but the authors of the Hist. lit. Gal. 
ascribed it to Amulo (ἃ. 852), and they are followed by Migne. 
The work, like the preceding, is chiefly devoted to the wickedness 
and unbelief of the Jews, for which illustrations are drawn from 
the Fathers and from history. But since some sections of the work 
contain prophecies from Scripture pointing to Christ as the Mes- 
siah, it may claim a place in our list. 


23 


14. Fulbertus: Tractatus contra Judeos. 

In Migne, cxli. 306-318. In this work the Old Testament is 
freely used to prove the Messiahship of Christ. The prophecy of 
Gen. xlix. 10, plays an important part in the argument. In one 
section the details of Christ’s life to the number of fourteen are 
mentioned. The passages in proof of them are however simply 
referred to, not quoted. This section of course contains many 
particulars in common with our dialogue and with other earlier 
works, but betrays no literary connection with them. 

15. Petrus Damianus: Antilogus contra Judeos. 

In Migne, exly. 41-57. The work is chiefly devoted to the 
Scripture proofs of the Trinity, of Christ’s Messiahship and God- 
manhood, and of the fact that the Messiah has already come in 
his person. For the Trinity the familiar passages of Genesis, 
which seem to imply a plurality in the Godhead, are chiefly relied 
upon. 

16. Thesame: Dialogus inter Judeum requirentem, et Christi- 
anum e contrario respondentem. 

In Migne, tid. 57-68. This work is put in the form of ques- 
tions and responses. ‘The Jew inquires why, if Christ came not to 
destroy but to fulfill the law, the Christians do not still observe its 
precepts. The Christian in reply shows that the law was only 
mystical and typical, and was fulfilled and therefore done away 
with by Christ. After completing this subject, the Christian in an 
epilogue draws out at considerable length the details of Christ’s 
life, quoting Old Testament passages in prophecy of them. Most 
of the particulars are found in Papiscus and Philo, which shows 
how natural and almost necessary is agreement in connection with 
this subject, even when literary relationship, as in the present case, 
cannot be constituted, indeed is quite out of the question. 

1%. Gilbert: Tractatus de incarnatione contra Judeos. 

In Migne, clvi. 489-528. This work is divided into three books, 
of which the first is put in the form of questions embodying objec- 
tions, and responses containing solutions of them. The first book 
is devoted chiefly to the conception of the Son of God by the Virgin, 
and is thoroughly scholastic. The second book, likewise scholastic, 
discusses Deus omnia hominis utrum susceperit an non? The 
third book, which alone warrants us in including this work in our 
list, is devoted particularly to Christ’s earthly life as foretold by the 
prophets, and thus shows many resemblances to our dialogue and 


24 


other earlier works. Even here however scholasticism plays an 
important part. 

A closing chapter is devoted to Christian image worship, in 
which the argument deduced in favor of such worship is similar 
to that in our dialogue, and different from most of the argu- 
ments of this age. Not the things themselves, but Christ repre- 
sented by them, is the object of worship. Many more parallels are 
drawn from Old Testament history in illustration of this sort of 
worship than are found in Papiscus and Philo. Thurot, in the 
Revue Historique, ii. 105, points out the connection of this work 
with Gilbert’s History of the Crusades. 

18. Rabbi Samuel Marochianus: De adventu Messie preterito 
liber. 

In Migne, cxlix. 337-368. This work is peculiar from the 
fact that it was written by a converted Jew. He demonstrates from 
the Scriptures, for the benefit of his unconverted countrymen, the 
truth of Christianity, dwelling at length upon the rejection of the 
Jews as a result of their treatment of Christ, who is shown from 
the prophets to be the true Messiah. The tone is very gentle and 
conciliatory. The work is a translation of an Arabic original. 

19. Gilbert, Abbot of Westminster: Disputatio Judei cum 
Christiano de fide christiana. 

Printed among the works of Anselm in Migne, clix. 1005- 
1036. The author states that the work is a reproduction of an 
actual disputation between himself and a Jew, and indeed the Jew 
plays a much more prominent part than is usual in these dialogues, 
thus giving a character of reality to the discussion. The Jew in- 
quires what authority the Christians have for rejecting the law of 
Moses. ‘The Christian insists in reply upon the spiritual interpre- 
tation of the Old Testament. The prophecy of Gen. xlix. 10 
occupies a prominent position in the proof of Christ’s Messiahship. 

The work contains a lengthy discussion of the continued virgin- 
ity of Mary and closes with objections against image worship, which 
the Christian answers by referring to the various images mentioned 
in the Old Testament (cf. p. 85). A feature of this dialogue is 
the discussion of the authority of the LXX. which the Jew denies 
and the Christian maintains. An interesting point is that Baruch 
ill, 36 is quoted (see p. 88) but denied by the Jew to be the 
words of Jeremiah, while the Christian contends that they were 
spoken by Jeremiah and recorded by Baruch. 


25 


20. Odo: Disputatio contra Judeum Leonem nomine de adventu 
Christi filii Det. 

In Migne, clx. 1103-1112. A theological disquisition upon the 
Atonement, thrown into the form of a dialogue between Odo and 
Leo, and closing with a discussion of Mary’s virginity. It makes no 
use of Scripture prophecies, quoting the Old Testament rarely, and 
then only in regard to the remission of sins. Only the fact that 
it assumes the form of a dialogue entitles it to a place in this 
list. 

21. Dialogus inter Christianum et Judeum de fide catholica. 

Printed in Migne, clxiii. 1015-1072, among the spurious 
works of Guilelmus Episcopus Calalaunensis. A theological dis- 
quisition similar to the preceding, but more scholastic. Old 
Testament prophecies are used but little, and the work therefore 
-is but slightly connected with the general class of anti-Jewish 
writings. 

22. Rupertus: Annulus sive Dialogus inter Christianum et 
Judeum. 

In Migne, clxx. 561-610. The work is in three books, of 
which the first demonstrates that circumcision no longer avails ; the 
second discusses chiefly the relation of faith and the Jewish law, 
and the reason for the rejection of the Jews; and the third is 
devoted to Scripture proof of Christ’s Messiahship. The work 
therefore falls well into line with the general class of anti-Jewish 
writings, but at the same time contains much scholasticism. The 
worship of images is defended by a reference to the images men- 
tioned in the Old Testament, 6. g., the brazen serpent, ete. This is 
a very common argument for the practice, but quite different from 
that employed in Papiscus and Philo. (See p. 85.) 

23. Hildebert: Contra Judwos de incarnatione. (Sermones 
de diversis XIV.) 

Migne, clxxi. 811-814. This brief discourse cites passages 
from the Old Testament prophetic of the incarnation and of the 
birth from the Virgin, and shows that the latter is not impossible 
by referring to many wonders recorded in Scripture, as e.g., the 
conception of Sarah. 

24. Peter, Abbot of Clugny: Tractatus adversus Judeorum 
inveteratam duritiem. 

In Migne, elxxxix. 507-650. This lengthy tract, although in 
the main different from any other anti-Jewish work with which 


26 


I am acquainted, yet belongs with right to the general class of 
writings under consideration. It is divided into five sections, which 
are devoted to proving, chiefly from Old Testament Scripture, that 
Christ is the Son of God, that he is true God, that he is not a tem- 
poral but an eternal and celestial king, and that as the Jewish 
Messiah he has already come. The fifth section is deyoted to the 
ridicule fabule of the Jews. The fourth section, which demon- 
strates that Christ is the Jewish Messiah, most resembles the earlier 
works of our class. Gen. xlix. 10 and the prophecies of Daniel play 
a prominent part in the demonstration, a feature which is peculiarly 
characteristic of the anti-Jewish works of this age. 

25. Richard of St. Victor: De Emmanuele libri duo. 

In Migne, exevi. 601-665. This work does not belong strictly 
to the class of writings under consideration, inasmuch as it has 
nothing to do with Scripture proofs for Christ’s Messiahship. It is 
however written ostensibly against the Jews, and is deyoted to a 
discussion of the Emanuel passage of Isa, vii. The work is chiefly 
a scholastic refutation of objections to the incarnation and related 
doctrines, In the second book the form of a dialogue between the 
author and Hugo is assumed. The work is occasioned by a com- 
mentary of ‘‘ Magistri Andree” upon Isaiah, in which various 
objections of the Jews were cited, and as it appeared to Richard 
accepted, or at least left as insoluble. In the second book therefore 
Hugo is represented as one of the disciples of Andreas who adduces 
Jewish objections. A dialogue therefore between two Christians, 
instead of between a Christian and a Jew. The reason which the 
author gives for the adoption of the dialogistic form in the second 
book is interesting and significant. ‘Sub forma autem dialogi 
totam subsequentis operis seriem digessi, eo quod hie modus dicendi, 
vel docendi pre ceteris sit, vel ad audiendum jucundior, vel ad 
persuadendum efficacior, Unum itaque ex Magistri Andres dis- 
cipulis mecum altercantem introduxi, ut sub forma ratiocinandi 
servata vicissitudine interrogandi et respondendi, melius elucesceret 
quidquid in dubium venire potuisset.” 

26, Petrus Blesensis : Contra perfidiam Judeorum. 

In Migne, cevii. 825-870. This work consists of thirty-seven chap- 
ters of ‘ testimonies,” drawn chiefly from the Old Testament. They 
are deduced partly in proof of various ecclesiastical doctrines, partly 
as prophecies of the events of Christ’s life, which is treated in 
great detail. The last chapter contains a passage from the Sibyl- 


27 


line books, which is quoted also by Augustine in his work against the 
Jews, a fact noticed by the author. 

27%. Tractatus sive dialogus Magistri Gualtert Tornacensis et 
Balduini Valentianensis contra Judeos. 

In Migne, ecix. 426-458. This work consists of three books, and 
is peculiar in being a dialogue between two Christians, one of whom 
assumes the role of a Jew. Bk. I. shows that the Messiah has come, 
by pointing out the fulfillment of prophecies in the life of Jesus. 
Bk. II. has considerable to say about the calling of the Gentiles, but 
quotes also prophecies of Christ’s death, resurrection, etc. Bk. III. 
is wholly doctrinal, devoted chiefly to the Trinity and the Holy 
Spirit. 

28. Alanus: Contra hereticos libri quattuor. Liber tertius 
contra Judeos. 

In Migne, οὐχ. 305-430. Bk. III. 400-422. The third book 
alone comes under consideration here. The first part of it is 
thoroughly scholastic, and chiefly devoted to answering objections 
against the Trinity urged by the Jews. The abolition of the Jewish 
law is then discussed, and for this many Scripture prophecies are 
quoted. The fact that the Messiah has already come, his divinity, 
his birth from the Virgin, his descent into Hades, his passion, his 
resurrection and ascension, are all demonstrated, chiefly from Old 
Testament prophecies. 

29. Tractatus adversus Judeum. 

In Martene and Durand’s Thes. nov. anecdot. v. 1507-1568, and in 
Migne, cexili. 749-808. The first part of this anonymous tract (of 
the twelfth century) is a theological disquisition, which is devoted 
to a demonstration of the various doctrines of the church by means 
of proof texts drawn from Scripture. The author, in accordance 
with a principle laid down at the start, draws his proofs (almost) 
exclusively from the Old Testament, which he uses, not for prophe- 
cies, but for proof texts. In the latter part of his work, however, 
he dwells upon the details of Christ’s life and the predictions of 
the Old Testament in regard to them, including the advent, birth 
from a virgin, Christ’s coming for the nations, his passion, the 
destruction of Jerusalem, and the universal preaching of the Gos- 
pel. The last paragraph is devoted to the continued virginity of 
Mary, a subject seldom omitted in the later works of this class. 


CHAPTER 11. 


DIALOGUE OF PAPISCUS AND PHILO. 


8 3. Manuscripts. 


Our dialogue is extant in three manuscripts. Of these one is in 
the National Library at Paris, another in the St. Mark’s Library at 
Venice, and the third in the Library of the Most Sacred Synod at 
Moscow, 

I. Par. Cod. Greee. 1111.’ 

The catalogue contains the following description of this manu- 
script : 

Codex membranaceus, olim Ludovici de Targny, ibi continentur : 

1, $8. Johannis Damasceni de hymno trisagio epistola ad Jor- 
danem Archimandritam. Quedam desiderantur. 

2-8. Theodori Abucare [Seven dialogues of Theodorus Abucara, 
all of which are given in Migne]. 

9. Papisci et Jasonis Judeorum cum monacho quodam de 
Christiana religione et Mosaica lege colloquium.’ 

10, Colloquium aliud de non comedenda suilla, ete. 

11. Theodori responsum ad objectionem sibi a Severianis pro- 
positam adyersus orthodoxam fidem. 

12. Ejusdem capita undecim, quibus ostenditur disparitas exem- 
pli singularis hujus hominis cum unione qux in Christo facta est. 

13. Ejusdem exemplum quo ostenditur quomodo macula 
peceati Adami et per incarnationem Salvatoris nostri expiatio ad 
universum genus humanum pervaserit. 

14. Anonymus de fine mundi, 

15, 8. Joannis Chrys. fragmentum de eodem argumento. 

16. 8. Hippolyti, Epise. Rome, opusculum de seculi consum- 
matione et de Antichristo, 

17. 8. Hieronymi interrogatio et responsa, imprimis utilia, de 
precipuis religionis Christ. capitibus. 

‘This codex will be designated by the letter P. 


* This is our dialogue, though it is given in the catalogue with an incorrect 
and very deceptive title, 


29 


_ 18. Anonymi dialogus, quo ostenditur a Christianis trinitatem 
defendentibus Mosaicam de Dei unitate doctrinam nec everti nec 
labefactari. | 

19. 8S. Joan. Dam. orthodoxe fidei accurata expositio. 

20. Ejusdem institutio elementaris ad dogmata ady. monothe- 
litas, ete. 

21. Ejusdem opusculum de duabus in Christo volentatibus et 
operationibus. 

22. Ejusdem capita dialectica ad Cosmam. 

23. Joannis orthodoxi dialogus cum Manichexo, inter Dam. 
opera editus. 

24, Ejusdem responsio ad quest. quare sicut dicimus humani- 
tas Christi est ipsa humanitas Petri et Paul, ete. 

25. Ejusdem Theodori opusculum de luctatione Christi cum 
diabolo. 

26. Interrogatio a Saraceno quodam ady. Christ. religionem 
proposita. 

27%. Ejusdem responsum ad queest. sibi ab infidele propositam. 

28. Ejusdem resp. ad quest. sibi a Saraceno propos. Est autem 
dial. inter editos nonus. 

29. Hjusdem dialogus adv. Nestorianum, inter ed. XIV. 

30. Ejusdem dialogus ady. Nest. quo explicatur: ‘‘data est 
mihi omnis potestas.” 

31. Ejusdem dialogus tertius cum Nest., hactenus ineditus. 

32. Doctrina orthodoxi, quomodo oportuit credere. 

33. Exemplum libelli, sive fidei professionis a Joan. Monach. et 
presb. Damasceno, ete. 

34. Expositio fidei quam 8. Joannes Evang., jubente Maria 
virg., Gregorio Thaumat. revelavit. 

35. Expositio parabole, sicut auctore 8. Joan. Chrys. 

36. Anonymus de quattuor formis animalium et de beatis. 

Ts codex seeculo duodecimo exaratus videtur. 

The codex contains 244 fol. in 8vo, and dates from the eleventh 
or twelfth century. It is in good condition, the beginning and 
the end alone being somewhat worm-eaten and discolored. The 
page measures 18 x 13} cm., and contains on an average 26 lines 
with about 32 letters to a line. There are comparatively few 
abbreviations, no iota subscripts and no marginal notes. The 
codex is written by one hand throughout. Our dialogue fills fol. 
29-49. 


30 


Il. Ven. Cod. Greee, 505." 

The catalogue describes this codex as follows: Continentur : 

Libanii Sophiste epistole xxx. Fol. 2a—10a. 

Synesii Cyrene epist. x. 1la—lda. 

Subsequitur epist. metropolita cujusdam Rhodi ad metrop. 
Trapezuntium, 17a—24a. 

Matthei . . . patriarche instructio ad eos quiad sacerdotium 
promoventur et ad Sacerdotes ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν μαρτυρήσοντας. 
25a-3 Lb. 

Adjungitur oratio, εὐχὴ. . . 31b. ff. 

Marmelis Paleologi oratio in nativitatem Christi. 33b-54b. 

Nicephori Blemmyde de imperatoris institutione . . . 57a—76b. 

Disceptatio Pappisci et Philonis. 798-878. 

Psalterium et cantica veteris et novi Testamenti, aliaque ad 
officium Grecorum pertinentia. 8900. ff. 

In 8vo chartaceus, foliorum 375, seeculi ce. xiv. 

The page measures 214 x 14 cm. and contains 28 lines, with 
about 40 letters to a line. ‘The handwriting is clear, and for the 
most part without abbreviations. Titles and occasional capitals are 
inred. Our dialogue is free from marginal notes, though the re- 
mainder of the manuscript contains a great many of them. In 
1868, a student in the library disfigured the codex by adding non- 
sensical titles to various works. Our dialogue is absurdly desig- 
nated: PlafBiov ᾿Ιοσέφου ᾿Ιησός. 

Ill. The third manuscript, which is in the Bibliotheca Sanctis- 
sim Synodi at Moscow’ (Cod. Gree. =*) is described by Matthei 
as follows*: Codex in charta bombycina sec. xy. foliornm 146, 
Fuit antea in monasterio Iberorum. A principio est mutilus. 
Continet collectionem canonum, Rhodiorum νόμον ναυτικὸν et 
ἀντιβολὴν Παπίσπκου καὶ Φίλωνος Ἰουδαίων πρὸς μοναχὸν 
περὶ πίστεως χριστιανῶν." Ἐ7α5 initium: “ἠρώτησεν Ia- 
πίσκος ὁ Ἰουδαῖος, διατί τοῦ ϑεοῦ παραγγέλοντοξ." 

' This codex will be designated by the letter V. 

* This codex will be designated by the letter M. 

* Tl owe my knowledge of this codex to a communication made to Professor 
Adolf Harnack by Dr. Oscar von Gebhardt. I have not been able to examine 
the codex myself, but the librarian in Moscow has very kindly furnished me 
with its variant readings for the first three pages of the dialogue, which com- 
mences at fol, 131. 

*Matthawi does not give the title fully, as will be seen by a comparison of the 
text, where the variations of M are given. 


91 


§ 4, elation between the Two Forms of the Dialogue. 


The two manuscripts of our dialogue, P and V, give recensions 
of the work differing greatly in extent as well as in many minor 
details. It takes but a casual examination to convince any one 
that the recension represented by V is older than that repre- 
sented by P, although the former manuscript is at least two cen- 
turies younger than the latter. The most obvious evidence of this 
is the fact that the recension represented by P (which we shall call 
RP for brevity’s sake) expressly indicates the date of its com- 
position as the eleventh century, while the recension represented by 
V (RV) as clearly indicates the seventh or eighth. This is in itself 
decisive proof of the later date of RP, unless it be supposed that 
the numbers were inserted by some mere copyist and are independ- 
ent of the respective recensions as a whole. Such a conclusion 
could of course be accepted only under the pressure of strong inter- 
nal grounds. Let us then compare the two forms somewhat in 
detail to ascertain whether the relation indicated by the dates is 
borne out by internal evidence. For the later origin of RP speak 
the following arguments : 

1. The passage inserted by P (after Μαρίας, p. 53, 1.13), which 
is omitted by both V and An.,' is clearly a later interpolation, for 
there is no connection between it and the answer of the Jew which 
follows. The latter is evidently to be connected directly with 1. 13. 

2. The passage which in P follows ἐβασίλευσεν (p. 58, |. 7) 
seems to be a later insertion, for we can see otherwise no reason for its 
omission both by V and An. It may be noticed too that the use of 
ὁ Δαβὲὴδ at the beginning is peculiar. Τῇ all were the work of one 
hand we should expect simply καὶ πάλιν. Again the phrase 
διαῤῥήδην φάσπει used in connection with Malachi is suspicious, 
for neither of these words occurs again in the whole work. 

3. The most important difference between the two forms occurs 
in the passage upon the details of Christ’s life, p. 65 ff. The fuller 
and more highly developed form of P appears at once to be later 
than the very simple form of V. If however it be suggested that V 
has simply omitted the fuller particulars of P for the sake of brevity 
(a thing very improbable in itself, since this passage forms the 
strongest part of the Christian’s argument) it can be shown that 


‘ The abbreviation An. is used to designate the work of Anastasius, men- 
tioned above, p. 17, whose relations to our dialogue are discussed below, p. 35 ff. 


32 


internal indications confirm the later insertion of the passages pecul- 
iar to P. We need mention but two points. First, the use of 
axovowpev in introducing quotations. This form occurs ten 
times in the passage in question, and only once in the rest of the 
work, and that in introducing one of the Daniel quotations which 
is likewise peculiar to P ; so that V does not once have the form. 

A second and decisive point is the difference in the wording of 
Isa. ix. 6 as quoted on p. 57 in the part of the work common to 
both MSS. and on p. 66 in the part peculiar to P. The writer of 
RP certainly used a LXX. text different from that used by the 
writer of the original of the earlier portion of the dialogue, while 
in copying that eariier portion he simply transcribed his source 
directly as it stood, 

4. P contains a long passage (p. 80 ff.) which is devoted chiefly 
to prophecies from Daniel, and is wholly omitted by V. The very 
nature of this passage, which is so different from the rest of the 
work, excites suspicion at once. Again, the same form ἀκούσωμεν, 
which occurs elsewhere only in the long passage mentioned as pecul- 
iar to P, occurs once in this portion of the work. And finally, not 
to multiply arguments for so patent a fact, this whole passage is 
omitted not only by V but also by An., which contains otherwise 
much that is peculiar to P over against V. Other minor additions 
of P which witness to a later hand will be mentioned in the notes. 

We conclude then that RV is certainly older than RP. 

The question then arises, did RP draw directly from RV or 
must we assume an older common source ? Although the varia- 
tions between V and P are numerous, they are nevertheless of such 
a character as to furnish no reason for assuming an older. common 
source, and more than that V contains no passage of any length 
omitted by P, so that the original cannot at any rate have differed 
in extent from RV. And when it is remembered that V is two 
centuries later than P, the variations, all of which are but minor, 
are easily explained. We may look upon RV then as the original 
of RP.’ 


ἃ 5. Relation of the Dialogue to other Anti-Jewish Works. 


An interesting question connected with our dialogue is its rela- 
tion to other works of the kind, 


‘That RP used another source in addition to RV will be shown in § 5. 


33 


Its title leads us at once to look for some relationship between it 
and the lost dialogue of Papiscus and Jason. But in this expecta- 
tion we find ourselves disappointed. Our actual knowledge of that 
ancient dialogue is very limited ; at the same time we know enough 
about it to be able to conclude that the present work stands in no 
literary relationship to it. 

Harnack, in his most keen and suggestive essay already men- 
tioned, has summed up’ the facts known in regard to the contents of 
the lost work under thirteen heads. Our dialogue was probably com- 
posed in Egypt (see below, § 7), where the dialogue of Papiscus and 
Jason was well known, and to which country Papiscus was represented 
as belonging. Again the older dialogue treated chiefly of Christ, and 
was devoted to showing that the Old Testament Messianic prophecies 
correspond to the facts of Jesus’ life. In both of these points our 
dialogue agrees well with the lost one; but the agreement ceases 
here. The latter belonged to the class of works which contain 
allegories ; it concluded with the canversion of the Jew; Deut. xxi. 
23 was quoted, and that in the form given by Aquila; Gen. i. 1 
was interpreted as if it read: ‘In filio fecit Deus ccoelum et terram ;” 
the expression ‘‘seven heavens” was found in it ; the dialogue was 
perhaps of an apocalyptic nature. Of all these characteristic traits 
not one appears in our present dialogue, a series of omissions exceed- 
ingly difficult to explain if the writer based his work in any way 
upon the earlier one. The title, which so strongly suggests the 
older dialogue, will be discussed below (§ 6). 

The next point is to inquire whether our dialogue shows any 
relationship to Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho. Such a relationship 
might appear in itself antecedently probable, as Justin’s work was 
widely circulated and enjoyed a very high reputation.? But a 
comparison of the two works shows no connection between them. 
They exhibit an entirely different line of thought, different inter- 
pretations of Biblical passages which they happen to have in com- 
mon, and all that is most characteristic of Justin’s dialogue is 
lacking in the present one. To attempt a detailed exhibition of 
the differences would be useless. Justin’s dialogue contains about 
385 Old Testament quotations and the dialogue of Papiscus and 
Philo about 103. Of these but 38 are common to both works, and 
most of them are used in different connections, and many of them 

' Teate und Untersuchungen, Bd. I. Heft 3, p. 116 ff. 


? We know too that it was used by Tertullian in his Adv. Judaos. 
3 


94 


interpreted in a manner quite unlike in the two, A resemblance 
between the two occurs in the application of the words of Psa. 1xxi. 
1, to Solomon both by Trypho (c. 34) and by Papiscus-Philo (p. 
55); but the language in the two cases is quite different, and the 
application of the words to Solomon is too natural to need any 
literary dependence to explain it. Another resemblance is found 
between Trypho, ο. 49 and Pap., p. 56, where the Jews avow 
their expected Messiah to be only human; but of this the same 
may be said. 

Harnack has shown that a common source (probably the dialogue 
of Papiscus and Jason) existed, of which Tertullian, Cyprian, Lac- 
tantius and Evagrius made extensive use, and which explains their 
common and often striking agreement in a portion of their Biblical 
citations. But our dialogue shows no more of a connection with 
these works than with the dialogues of Papiscus and Jason, and of 
Justin and Trypho. Further its independence of the assumed 
common source is still more marked, for the passages common to it 
and to that source reduce themselves to seven in number, and in 
these the resemblance is in no case striking. Cyprian’s 7estimonia, 
the fullest development of this common type, was widely used among 
occidental writers subsequent to his time (see Harnack, 7d. p. 97 ff.). 
But in the orient we find no trace of a knowledge of the work (in 
itself of course antecedently improbable), and what is still more 
important, no trace of a use of the common source from which the 
various occidental writers drew. ‘The Pseudo-Gregorian Testimonia 
adv. Jude@os (a work very similar in scope and character to the Zesti- 
monia of Cyprian), Chrysostom’s Adversus Jud@os, the dialogne of 
Gregentius with Herbano the Jew, and our own dialogue, although 
all devote a large space to the fulfillment of prophecy in the life of 
Christ, yet are all quite independent of the source mentioned, and 
ut the same time of each other. ‘The resemblances to be sure between 
the Pseudo-Gregorian Tesfimonia and our dialogue are a little more 
marked than those between the latter and the Testimonia of Cyprian 
(of the particulars in regard to the life of Christ contained in 
Pseudo-Gregory all are found in RP, though the texts cited are 
often quite different), and yet not sufficiently so to warrant the 
assumption of any literary connection, A common tradition grown 
into a habit of pointing out certain coincidences between prophecy 
and the life of Christ seems enough to account for all the resem- 
blances, and we are thus enabled at the same time to explain the 


ais) 

differences, both in the details mentioned and in the texts quoted, 
differences which are very numerous and very great between all 
these works. Each writer meanwhile in pointing out new details 
would add to the common stock of material upon this subject, of 
which we should expect later writers to make use. It is therefore 
not surprising that RP should contain the details of Pseudo-Gregory 
and of other works, The great differences in the texts quoted, in 
the details themselves (Gregory containing many others on the 
Sacraments, circumcision, the Sabbath, etc., entirely omitted by 
Papiscus), in the general arrangement and plan of the two works 
utterly preclude any direct literary dependence. The resemblance 
between our dialogue and the works of Chrysostom and of Gregen- 
tius is still less. 

A work is extant however which is very closely connected with 
our dialogue. This is the work (or rather collection of works, for it 
contains five separate tracts) which bears the title >Avagraciov 
ab Pa διάλεξις κατὰ ᾿Ιουδαίων (no. 19 in the list of Greek works 
given in § 2). Large portions of this work are identical with the 
dialogue of Papiscus and Philo. The question at once confronts us, 
how are the two related ? Is our dialogue a mere extract from the 
larger work, or is the latter an enlargement of the former, or do the 
two spring from an older source ? 

The first supposition is ruled out by the respective dates of the 
two works. RV belongs to the seventh or eighth centuries (see ἃ 7), 
while Anastasius’ work belongs to the ninth. These dates, which 
are distinctly given in the writings themselves, we have no reason to 
doubt, especially since a comparison of RV and An. shows that the 
former contains every mark of originality over against the latter. 
At the same time, that An. is not itself an original work is ante- 
cedently probable, both from its fragmentary character and from 
the fact that it purports to be simply a collection of directions how 
to answer a Jew in case he makes certain objections or asks certain 
questions. The probability is further confirmed by the irregularity 
of construction in introducing the objections of the Jew. Some- 
times they are given in direct discourse, sometimes in indirect, a 
course which is best explained by supposing the writer to have drawn 
from a source which had the form of a dialogue and to have been 
careless in his reproduction of it. A decisive proof of the non- 
original character of An. lies in the opening sentence of the second 
tract, which begins καὶ yap ἅπαντα. The previous tract had 


36 


closed with a doxology, and was thus quite complete in itself. The 
καὶ yap of the opening sentence of the second shows clearly that 
it is simply an extract from a previous work torn abruptly from its 
context. The exact words occur, in fact, in RV in their proper con- 
nection. 

On the other hand, nothing which RV contains is omitted by 
An., except the external setting of the dialogue, which, of course, 
was dropped when the dialogistic form was given up. This leads 
us to conclude that the source of An. was practically identical with 
RV ; that is, that no common source for the two need be assumed.’ 

But a comparison of An. with the fuller form RP reveals connec- 
tions between the two which cannot be explained by their common 
use of RV. An. in many places agrees with RV in the omission of 
passages which RP contains, but at the same time it has a great 
deal in common with RP over against RV. On the other hand, 
RV and RP agree in many points over against An., notably in the 
title, in the first paragraph, and in the dialogistic form with all its 
accessories, In any case therefore, RV lies at the base of both, and 
neither can be explained by its exclusive use of the other. Mean- 
while, the respective dates of An. and RP rule out the dependence 
of the former upon the latter. There remain, therefore, but two 
possibilities open : either RP made use of An. in addition to RV, or 
both RP and An. made use of a common work which included RV, 
that is, was a later growth from it. In the latter case of course 
the dependence of An. and RP upon RV is not direct but mediate. 
Meanwhile, inasmuch as P has every one of the prophetic particu- 
lars contained in An. and with a similarity of language which in- 
volves literary connection in all of them, the source from which RP 
drew must have contained them all. But it is noticeable that in 
An. they are given, a part of them in the second treatise, a part in the 
third, and, when compared with RP, in a very disordered way. It 
is impossible to conceive that An. could in the second treatise have 
omitted entirely so many of these particulars and in the third have 
introduced them in so different an order if the source contained 
them as given in RP. This of course confirms the fact, which we 
have already accepted as established by the respective dates, that 
An, did not draw from RP (a fact further confirmed by its much 
less full and developed form in respect to these particulars), and 
also goes to show that An., in addition to the common source RV, 

‘ Upon the ‘‘ Anastasius ” of the two titles, see below, § 6. 


37 


cannot have drawn from another source any more like RP than 
itself. 

Further it is a significant fact that on p. 69, 1. 8, RP shows its 
dependence upon a non-dialogistic source, for it reads ἐρώτησον 
λοιπὸν tov Ἰουδαῖον nat εἰπὲ αὐτῷ, which is evidently a reminis- 
cence of a work of the same nature as An. in which this sort of phrase 
occurs frequently. It is true that RP varies considerably from An. in 
detail, and that it omits entirely a great deal which An. contains. 
But in the variations RP is almost always superior to An., both 
in arrangement and in logical force, and they can thus be easily 
explained as purposed improvements upon the part of the former. 
Tn regard to the long passages omitted, we have no right to expect 
that RP would transcribe the whole of An. ‘The writer took natu- 
rally only such parts as he wished, and those were especially the sec- 
tions containing the detailed prophecies of Christ’s life, of which 
he adopted every one, gathering them from the different parts of 
An. and arranging them in a logical and symmetrical way. From 
the omission of the lengthy discussion of An. upon the history of 
the Jews and justification by faith and works, we have no right to 
assume a lack of knowledge of them on the part of RP. 

We may conclude then that there exists nothing to necessitate the 
assumption of a common source for An. and RP over and above RY, 
but that all the phenomena are explained by supposing RP to have 
made use of both RV and An.’ This conclusion agrees exactly with 
what the respective dates of the works would lead us to expect. 


§ 6. Sources and Title. 


The reader must be struck, upon the most hasty perusal, with 
the utter lack of connection between the first paragraph of our 
dialogue: and that which follows. It cannot be supposed that the 
author began his work with this utterly foreign passage upon image 


‘Tt isnoticeable that An. and RP have nothing in common which is omitted 
by RV except in connection with the details of Christ's life. Aside from these 
details both seem to have drawn directly from RV, and RP seems to have paid 
no attention to An. If this fact were pressed, it might appear to lead to the 
assumption of a common source for An. and RP, containing the dialogistic set- 
ting and all the common peculiarities of RV and RP over against An., while at 
the same time enlarged in the direction of An, so as to include all the details 
upon Christ’s life found in the latter, and in the same order asin it. The assump- 
tion of such a source would account fully for RP without supposing a direct 
dependence on its part upon either RV or An. In this case the minor verbal 


38 


worship, and then passed over so abruptly to the subject which 
constitutes the substance of the dialogue. The only possible ex- 
planation of the matter, if a single author be assumed for the 
whole, is the addition of this passage after the completion of the 
body of the work, for the purpose of attracting interest in an age 
when the image controversy was absorbing all minds. But against 
this speak two very obvious facts. First, the reference to images on 
p. 75 presupposes the existence of this introductory passage, and 
secondly, the Christian is called in the opening paragraph μοναχὸς 
by V, and ἀββᾶς by P, while in the remainder of the work he is 
uniformly called γριστιανοὸς by both MSS. We are thus led to 
conclude that the opening paragraph is the addition of a later 
hand, and, if this paragraph, then also the passage upon the same 
subject on p. 75. RV is therefore not the original form of our 
dialogue. But when we ask what was the original form, we can 
frame only a conjectural answer. 'The passages which have been 
shown to be later additions of P, and the paragraphs just mentioned 
are of course to be stricken out, but further than that we cannot go 
with certainty. Other passages which it seems probable did not 
belong to the original will be referred to in the notes. 

The question next arises, what was the title of the original 
source which has been shown to have existed ? In turning to this 
question we are met by a peculiar fact. In our existing title two 
Jews are mentioned, while in the dialogue itself only one is repre- 
sented as speaking. It is certain that the title and the dialogue as 
they stand cannot be from the same hand, and it is further certain 
that the singular form of the text is older than the plural form of 
the title, for no one would have changed Ἰουδαῖοι throughout to 
Ἰουδαῖος, while leaving the title in the plural.’ When and how 


agreements of An. and RP over against RV (in the sections common also to RV) 
might represent the altered form of the intermediate source, Still facts do not 
necessitate the existence of such a source, and we may therefore rest content with 
the conclusion reached above, that RP drew directly from RV and An. _ In that 
case the minor verbal agreements just spoken of, representing as they would the 
form of RV used by both An. and RP, would be a stronger witness to the 
original form than the later manuscript V. It has seemed best however to give 
the text according to V rather than to introduce conjectural emendations. 

'Jovdaior occurs once in P, p. 56, 1. 22 (where V has the singular), but this 
is owing to the multitude of Jews who are mentioned shortly before as onlookers, 
and has no reference to the two Jews of the title. The plural occurs once also 
in V, p. 65, 1. 6. See note on p. 89. 


39 


then did the plural form arise ? Did the original title contain the 
names of the two contesting parties—of a Jew and a Christian —or 
did it simply contain the name of the author (as the dialogues of 
Petrus Damianus, of Gilbert of Westminster, etc.), or no name at 
all (as the anonymous Latin dialogue in Migne, clxiii. 1015 ff.) ἢ 
The first alternative is antecedently the most probable, when the 
analogy of similar works is considered,’ and this probability is 
strengthened, as we shall see, by the existing form. Our title as it 
stands arouses at first sight the suspicion that the names Papiscus 
and Philo have been added as representative Jews, typical of the 
Jewish people as a whole, the former name being naturally sug- 
gested for such a dialogue from its use in the earlier dialogue of 
Papiscus and Jason, the latter as the name of the great Jewish 
philosopher. In this case the original title either contained no 
Jewish name (for we cannot suppose an original name to have been 
displaced to make room for two others), or it contained one and the 
other was afterward added. If the former was the case it is 
difficult to explain the addition of two names when the dialogue 
itself runs throughout in the singular, and still more so to explain 
the name Papiscus, which stands in the opening of V and M with- 
out Philo. This latter fact seems to indicate that Papiscus stood 
originally in the title and Philo was afterwards added, but it is 
difficult to see the necessity for such an addition both inconsistent 
with the dialogue itself and out of all analogy with other works of 
the kind. The simplest explanation of the matter seems to me to 
be that the original title contained both names, Papiscus and Philo, 
but that. the former only was the name of a Jew, the latter the 
name of a Christian. We should then have to think of the title as 
bearing the form *Avtzfoln Παπίσπκου καὶ Φίλωνος, which would 
agree excellently with the titles of other anti-Jewish dialogues. 
The name Papiscus then might represent an actual Jew, or be simply 
a repetition of the name used in the dialogue of Papiscus and 
Jason. The latter is of course much more probable, for that two 
Jews should have existed in different ages and both separately 
either actually have taken part in or have been represented as 
taking part in dialogues with Jews is quite improbable, especially 
when we realize the uncommonness of the name, for, so far as the 
writer knows, the name occurs nowhere else than in these two 


1 Of. ladovos καὶ Παπίόπου ἀντιλογία περὶ Χριστοῦ, Altercatio Simonis 
et Theophili, ete. 


40 


dialogues, It is therefore probable that the author owes the name 
Papiscus to the earlier dialogue, which we know was still in cir- 
culation in the seventh century, for it is mentioned by Maximus 
Confessor.’ It is of course not necessary to conclude that the 
author had himself read the earlier dialogue, though the lack of all 
resemblance between the two works cannot be urged as absolutely 
proving that he had not. 

The name Philo then might either have been taken from some 
prominent Christian of the age (we know of a number of Christian 
Philos of the fourth and following centuries), or it might have been 
the name of the author himself, This being the original title of the 
dialogue, it is very easy to explain the later corruption. When the 
Christian Philo meant in the title had dropped out of memory, it 
would be quite natural to think, in connection with this name, of 
the great Jewish philosopher, and later editors or copyists would 
then have before them the singular spectacle of an anti-Jewish dia- 
logue held between two Jews. The extension of the title, when it 
was once thus interpreted, became of course a necessity. There is a 
hint of this subsequent extension in the designation of the Christian 
which occurs in the extant title. Pand M give no name to him, 
but call him simply μοναχόν τινὰ, a most remarkably impersonal 
designation if it be a part of the original title. Its later addition 
however is quite natural. The editor who added it thought, very 
likely, that the original name of the Christian had fallen out, and 
instead of inserting presumptuously a particular name, for which 
he had no authority, he simply subjoined ‘‘ with a certain monk,” 
for that the dialogue must have been with some Christian was self- 
evident. 

That the name ‘Avaoraczios of V is a later addition seems 
probable for two reasons: first, because we can otherwise see no 
ground for its omission by both P and M, which are otherwise inde- 
pendent of each other (so far as can be judged from the brief extract 
of M which has been compared) ; secondly, because of the occur- 
rence of rzva in connection with the ‘Avaoraciov of V. When 
there existed a reason for adding the name Anastasius, which could 
have been only because of his prominence as a Christian, or because 
he himself revised the dialogue, it would have been peculiar to call 
him ‘‘a certain monk, Anastasius.” In fact, it seems clear that 
the μοναχόν τινὰ of P, M and V was the original addition, and 

‘See Harnack : Teale und Untersuchungen, Ba. I. Heft I. p. 123. 


4] 


that later the ‘‘ Anastasius” of V was attached. We have further 
a hint as to the origin of this name. The Abbot Anastasius, in the 
work mentioned in § 5, as shown there makes extensive use of our 
dialogue, incorporating into his larger work almost the whole of it 
as it exists in V, and at the same time dropping the dialogistic form. 
He wrote in the ninth century. It would be very natural for his 
name, some centuries later, to be commonly connected with the 
dialogue itself which he had worked over, and all the more so since 
that represented the Christian.as a monk and yet left his personality 
entirely indefinite. ‘Thus it is not in the least unlikely that the 
writer of the manuscript V, of the fourteenth century, added 
Anastasius’ name to the impersonal designation which existed in 
his copy. This may of course have been done in all good faith, and 
the manuscript may in other respects have been exactly like its 
original. 

The word μοναχὸς occurs both in the title and in the first par- 
agraph of the dialogue (ἀββᾶς in P) and nowhere else. It is 
therefore natural, though of course not necessary, to conclude that 
the two additions are from the same hand, that the person who 
revised the original dialogue enlarged the original title. The addi- 
tion we can easily understand. It was done in a time when the 
image controversy was raging, that is, not before the sixth century, 
nor yet later than the seventh (for RV dates from the beginning of 
the eighth, or from the end of the seventh century), The redactor 
wished to fit the dialogue to the age and took the easiest way to do 
it. A work could not expect much of a circulation at that time 
unless it touched upon the great question of the day. It wasa cap- 
ital way too to depict the Christianity of image worship by picturing 
its opponent as a Jew, and an effective “tract for the times” was 
thus produced with a minimum of labor. The insertion of the word 
μοναχὸς was likewise most natural. It carried weight with it in 
those days and meant far more than the simple χριστιανὸς. The 
monks, too, were the great champions of image worship. 


§ 7. Time and Place of Composition. Authorship. 


Having thus reached probable conclusions as to the source and 
title of our work, we may finally inquire as to its authorship, and 
the time and place of its composition. 

The date of each of our recensions is given with considerable 


42 


exactness. On p. 65 RV, in speaking of the words of Christ, 
says ἅπερ πρὸ ἑξακοσίων ἔτων προεῖπεν. On p. 78 the Jews 
are said to have been driven about the world for 600 years, and in 
the following sentence the destruction of Jerusalem under Vespasian 
and Titus is mentioned, which would seem to imply that these 
years are to be reckoned from 70 A.D. These figures therefore, 
taken as round numbers, would bring us down to the seventh cen- 
tury. But on p. 79 the Jews are said to have been withort sacri- 
fices, without the passover, etc., for 670 years. It seems impossible 
to bring this number into harmony with the two preceding. If it 
be counted from 70 a.p. it brings us to the year 740, and if that 
be the true date we should expect on p. 65 to find ézranodiwyv 
ἔτων instead of ἑξακοσίων, it being to the author’s interest to 
make the time as long as possible. The most probable explanation 
of the difficulty seems to be that the writer in the present instance 
reckoned from the destruction of Jerusalem under Hadrian; for 
although this destruction is not spoken of in the context, yet, 
correctly speaking, he could count the complete abolition of sacrifices 
only from that date. In that case he must have written πεντακόσια 
ἑβδομήποντα instead of ἑξακόσια EBSopunnovra, and some copy- 
ist, having already written ἑξακόσια twice, wrote it again in this 
case by mistake. If this explanation be the true one the writer of 
RV was more conscientious in his reckoning than the writers 
of An. and RP, who count in both cases from the destruction of 
Jerusalem under Titus. We are thus led to assign the composition 
of RV to the very end of the seventh century or to the beginning 
of the eighth.’ 

The same passages in An., meanwhile, substitute for the figures 
of RV on p. 65 πρὸ χρόνων ὀκπταποσίων τ) καὶ ἐπέκεινα, and 
for the figures on pp. 73 and 79 ὀκτακόσια καὶ πλείονα. The 
inexactness of the statement does not permit us to fix the date with 
precision ; we can simply say toward the end of the ninth century. 
The writer in the present case clearly reckoned both on p. 78 and 
on p. 79 from 70 A.D. 

RP meanwhile substitutes for the numbers of RV and of An. on 
pp. 78 and 79 the number 1000. On p. 65 it has simply the indefi- 
nite expression πολλῶν ἕτων, but on p. 61 (note 84) it contains 
another datum, which is omitted by RV and An. The last, taken 


‘It cannot have been as late as 730, for then on p. 65 we should find 700 
instead of 600. 


43 


with preciseness, would lead us to about the year 1030 ; but taken as 
a round number, as it is evidently meant to be taken, it is in sub- 
stantial harmony with the figures of pp. 78 and 79, which point to 
about the year 1070 for the composition of RP. 

A more exact date may perhaps be drawn from another passage 
Mm EP: On Ρ. 61 (note 3) occur the words μὴ γάρ μοι τοῦτο σπο- 
πήσητε ἢ εἴπητε ὅτι ἄρτι εἰς τὰ κ΄ ταῦτα ἔτη TAIOEVO MESA οἵ 
χριστιανοὶ x.t.X. The interpretation of the sentence is somewhat 
dark, but it seems to imply that the Christians had been undergoing 
some sort of a persecution for twenty years. It is probable, as will 
be shown below, that our dialogue was written in Egypt, and it 
happens to be a fact that about the year 1058 under the Caliph El- 
Mustansir a persecution broke out in Alexandria against the Chris- 
tians. We know of no other at about this time to which the author 
could have referred, and the agreement in the present case is quite 
remarkable. The internal relations of the three forms confirm this 
order of composition, as we have already shown, and there is there- 
fore no reason to doubt the accuracy of these dates. 

A more interesting question is as to the date of the original lost 
source. Here we are left entirely to conjecture. There is nothing 
in it except the passing reference to the eternal virginity of Mary, 
which would prevent a very early date. At the same time the 
absence of later doctrines in a work of this class is not a decisive 
proof of its antiquity, as has been shown in Ohap.'T.; $1. “The 
terminus a quo is given by the words ἀεὶ παρϑένου applied to 
Mary,’ words which could not have been used before the fifth cen- 
tury. The terminus ad quem is given by the date of RV, namely, 
the early part of the eighth century or end of the seventh. Mean- 
while, if our view of the form of the original title be correct, con- 
siderable time must have elapsed between its composition and its 
use by RV, and still further its omission of all reference to image 
worship, which it was found necessary to insert in the later 
recensions, would likewise seem to point to a date nearer the begin- 
ning than the end of the period mentioned. 

As to the place of composition a hint is furnished us by the 
enumeration of the various religious cults on p. 74. Nearly all 
of them are Egyptian, a fact which points strongly to the Egyptian 

‘ Unless the possibility that the whole phrase is a later insertion, as suggested 


in the notes, be accepted, in which case there is nothing in the dialogue to pre- 
vent a much earlier date. 


44 


origin of the work. Again the persecution mentioned above fits so 
well, as far as date is concerned, that it is allowable to urge this 
agreement as an additional testimony to the Egyptian origin of 
RP. If this be accepted for our three recensions the most natural 
conclusion is that the original source was also of Egyptian origin. 

As to the authorship of RV and of RP we have no clue (the 
Anastasius of RV being, as already shown, a later addition). An. 
purports to be the work of an abbot Anastasius, and we have no 
reason to question this. It cannot of course be the work of Anasta- 
sius Sinaiticus (although it is printed among his writings by 
Migne), for it is some centuries too late for him. Nor can it be 
the work of Anastasius, Abbot of St. Eutimius in Palestine, as sup- 
posed by others, for he lived in the early part of the eighth cen- 
tury, not in the ninth. There is in fact no ground for connecting 
the work with any particular Anastasius known to us. The name 
was a very common one and the compilation may perhaps be the 
work of an Anastasius of whom we know nothing. 

As to the authorship of the original source we are of course left 
entirely to conjecture. It has been, however, suggested above that 
the Philo of the title may be the name of the original author; we 
know of a number of Christians of this name of the fourth and 
following centuries,’ and the work may have been written by one 
of them or by some other Philo unknown to us. 


§ 8. Analysis of the Dialogue. 


The dialogue dispenses with a formal introduction and opens 
abruptly with a question from the Jew. If the first paragraph, 
which is quite independent of the remainder of the dialogue, be left 
out of consideration for the moment, the work consists of three 
general sections. The first extends from p. 52 to p. 65, and is 
devoted in the main to the divine sonship and pre-existence of 
Christ, as proved by the predictions of the Old Testament. The 
second’ (pp. 65 to 73) contains an account of the life of Jesus, 
which is shown to have been foretold in detail by the prophets, 
These two divisions are thus chiefly biblical. The third (pp. 73 
to 80) is devoted in the main to an exhibition of the prosperity of 
Christianity in contrast with the fall of heathendom, and especially 

‘Cf. the list given by Fabricius-Harles, iv, 750 ff. 
* This is very brief in V, but carried out in great detail by P. 


45 


the misfortunes of the Jews—an argument, therefore, for the truth of 
Christianity drawn from history. ὃ 17 (pp. 80 to 82), which is wholly 
wanting in the Venetian manuscript, may be regarded as a separate 
section, or simply asa biblical supplement to the historical argument 
of the third division. The work is supplemented (in the Paris MS.) 
with a formal conclusion stating the reason for its composition. 

We may divide the whole for conyenience’s sake into seventeen 
paragraphs, 

§ 1. The work opens with a question from the Jew, who asks 
why the Christians worship images when such worship has been 
forbidden by God. The Christian answers that they do not worship 
the images themselves, but through them Christ. | 

§ 2. The Jew, without expressing satisfaction or dissatisfaction 
with the answer of the Christian, passes abruptly to another subject, 
inquiring why the Christians blaspheme by saying that God has a 
son. ‘The Christian proceeds to show that thjs is taught in the 
Jewish Scriptures, beginning his proof with the familar passage, 
Psa. 11. 7. The Jew claims that this refers to Solomon, an opinion 
_ which the Christian demonstrates to be untenable. 

8 3. The Jew then asks how God can say, ‘‘ Ask of me,” as if 
speaking to a servant, if the person addressed be his son. He 
inquires also how the words, ‘‘ This day have I begotten thee,” can 
be reconciled with the Christian doctrine of the pre-existence of 
Christ. The first trivial objection the Christian disposes of briefly, 
and answers the second by applying the words of the psalm to the 
birth according to the flesh. 

§ 4. The Jew considers it impossible that Christ, if born of 
Mary, could have existed before the world, and be God. The 
Christian then proposes to show from the Jewish Scriptures and the 
prophets the truth of what thé Christians preach concerning Christ. 

ὃ 5. He begins by showing that the ‘‘Son was begotten of the 
Father before all creation.” 

§ 6. He then asks the Jew whether the Messiah expected by 
them is to be God or mere man. The Jew replies that he is to be a 
mere man, like one of the prophets. 

§ 7. The Christian upon this appeals to the spectators and pro- 
poses that the Scriptures be examined, and if they have proclaimed 
the coming Messiah to be God, then the Christ worshiped by the 
Christians is truly God and Christ, but the one whom the Jews 
expect is a deceiver ahd Antichrist ; while on the other hand if the 


46 


prophets are not shown to have proclaimed the Messiah as God, 
then the Christians are deceived and the Jews speak the truth. He 
therefore causes them to bring their books from their synagogue, 
and proposes to draw his proofs from them. 

§ 8. He begins by quoting numerous passages from the Psalms 
and tig oil to prove that Christ is God. 

§$ 9. He then proceeds to show that the Messiah was promised 
as the Messiah of the nations. Quoting among other passages Jacob’s 
blessing upon Judah (Gen. xlix. 10) he points out that the terms of 
the prophecy have been already fulfilled, since the Jews have no longer 
king, ruiers, temple, etc. Their sacred places have all been taken 
from them and given to the Christians, whose name is spread every- 
where in spite of the many persecutions which they have suffered. 

§ 10. He then puts the question: If Christianity be false, why 
has God preserved it so wonderfully in the face of such enemies ? 
The church endures but its adversaries have perished. In this 
connection he shows that the prophecies of Christ himself have been 
proved true, quoting a number of them and pointing out their 
fulfillment in detail. 

§ 11. The Jew then asks why, if it were trne, the prophets did 
not clearly foretell that Christ should come and do away with the 
Jewish ritual. The Christian answers that they would have been 
stoned had they thus prophesied, and their books would have been 
burned, which would have been a great loss to the Christians, for 
even now, he says, he has been able to refute the Jew from those 
very books. 

§ 12. This leads him to return to the prophets, and he proceeds 
to make extracts from them which foretell the life of Christ in 
detail. In V four, in P thirty-five separate particulars of his life 
are mentioned, covering the time from his advent to his ascension. 
From this paragraph on the Jew says nothing and the work thus 
loses entirely the dialogistie form. 

§ 15. The Christian concludes this section upon the details of 
Christ’s life by asking, Who can deny Christ to be true God after 
hearing all this, for the Christians hold him to be not a mere man, 
but God incarnate who has overthrown idols and destroyed the 
sacrifices of demons? This leads him to inquire what has become 
of the priests of Memphis, of the worship of the Nile, ete, and to 
draw the contrast between their obliteration and the prosperity of 
Christianity. 


47 


§ 14. After his long digression he returns to the question of the 
Jew, as to why the prophets had not foretold the doing away of the 
Jewish ritual, and meets it by inquiring in return why the prophets 
had not foretold that a false Christ would come calling himself 
Jesus. 

§ 15. He then goes back to the first question of the Jew in 
regard to the Christians’ worship of images, and retorts by inquiring 
why the Jews worshiped the image of Nebuchadnezzar and the 
golden calf. This leads him to dwell upon their faithlessness and 
blindness, and to quote various Old Testament passages denuncia- 
tory of their wickedness. 

§ 16. As a consequence of their sins the Jews were sent in 
captivity to Babylon, but after seventy years were restored to their 
own country. What sin did they then commit of such magnitude 
as to cause God again to destroy their city and to banish them from 
it, this time for so many centuries? If they will not answer, the 
very stones will cry out that it 15 because they crucified Christ. 

At this point the work comes to an end in V, and a doxology is 
added. * 

8 17 (in P) gives extended quotations from Daniel, in which 
the destruction of Jerusalem, the dispersion of the Jews, and the 
coming of the Messiah are foretold, and the work proper is brought 
to a close with a doxology. 

The writer then adds that he has made these quotations from 
the prophets in order to confirm the faith of the Christians, and to 
convict the Jews. He concludes with an exhortation to fulfill the 
commands of Christ in return for the salvation accomplished by 
him, and in order to obtain the blessings of eternity. 


’ The second tract of An, also ends at the same point. 


ue a ee 


ὌΝ 
pai 
v™ , ῷ 


ABBREVIATIONS. 


V = Ven. Cod. Gree. 505. 
P = Par. Cod. Gree. 1111. 


314 


Μ = Bibl. Mosq. Sanct. Synodi Cod. Gree. CCCL 


An. = Anastasii Abbatis adv. Judios disputatio., 


Tue text is given according to V except in the few places where V is 
manifestly incorrect, when P and An. are followed, All the variations of P 
of every description are given. The variations of M are given so far as known, 
that is for the first two pages. The variations of An. from the text of V are 
given wherever the two texts run parallel, but not its variations from P in the 
long passage which V omits, for P and An. are so different at this point, both in 


matter and arrangement, as to preclude the possibility of such comparison. 


ANTIBOAH I[ATIZKOYr* KAI ®IAONOS IOTAAI- 
ON TON WAP EBPAIOIZ ZOGQN ΠΡΟΣ. MO- 
NAXON TINA? TWEPI WSTEO2 XPIZTIANON 
KAI.NOMOY EBPAION* KPOTHOEIZA Ell 
MHMOYr XPIZSTIANON* KAI IOTAAION. 5 


1. Ἠρωώτησε' Hanionos? Ἰουδαῖος" διὰ τί τοῦ Seob 
παραγγέλοντος" μὴ προσκυνεῖν λίϑον ἢ ξύλον," ὑμεῖς 
ταῦτα σέβεσϑε καὶ προσκυνεῖτε ποιοῦντες ἐξ αὐτῶν 
σταυροὺς καὶ εἰκόνας; 

amenpiSnv 6 μοναχός "" εἰπέ μοι συ, διὰ τί ὁ Ἰακὼβ 10 
προσεκύνησε τὸ ἄκρον τῆς ῥάβδου τοῦ Ἰωσήφ ;* 

ὁ ᾿Ιουδαῖος εἶπεν -" οὐχὶ τὴν ῥάβδον προσεκύνησεν ἢ 
τὸ ξύλον, ἀλλὰ τὸν κρατοῦντα αὐτὴν" Ἰωσὴφ ἐτίμησεν. 

ὃ μοναχὸς" εἶπεν *™ οὕτως Kal ἡμεῖς προσκυνοῦντες 
τὸν σταυρὸν, οὐ τὴν φύσιν τοῦ ξύλου προσκυνοῦμεν * 15 
μὴ γένοιτο: ἀλλὰ τὸν σταυρωθέντα ἐν αὐτῷ. καὶ 
ὥσπερ σὺ προσπυνεῖς " εἰ" εὕρῃς" τὰς δύο πλάπας nal 
τὰ δύο χερουβὶμ ἅπερ ἐποίησε Μωῦσῆς, καὶ τὴν κιβω- 
τὸν, τιμῶν τὸν ϑεὸν τὸν ἐπιτάξαντα αὐτῶ," οὕτω 
κμαᾳγῶὼ προσκυνῶν Tas εἰκόνας, οὐ τὸ ξύλον προσ- 20 
κυνῶ "" μὴ γένοιτο" " ὠλλὰ τὸν Χριστὸν τιμῶν καὶ τοὺς 
ἁγίους αὐτοῦ. 

καὶ ὅτι οὔτε'" τὸ ξύλον οὔτε" τὴν δωγραφίαν 
προσκυνῶ, ἐκ τούτου" δῆλον, ὅτι πολλάπις TAS εἰκόνας 


6 


1 Taniouov PM, Ilanxnicuov V. 7 εἰπέ μοι OV om, P. 

2°Avaorao.ov add. V ; om. PM. 8 εἶπεν om.P. 

3 βραίων V, ἑβραικοῦ PM. 9 αὐτὴν om. P. 

1 Appafov τε add. Ῥ, ᾿ράβων τε 1 αββὰς ΡΝ. 1 εἶπεν om. P. 
add. M. 2 TpPOGEXUV ELS P. 

ι Ήρώτησεν M. 13 ἂν et Ρ. "Ὁ εἰ εὕρῃς om. Μ. 

5 ΠαππίόπκοςΥ. % aura P, ταῦτα An. 

" ΕἘρωτημα Ἰουδαίου P. "δ προόδπυν ὧν P. 

᾿ παραγγελόντος Ῥ, παραγ} εἴ- τ un vévowro VMAn., om. P. 
Aavros An. 18 rooovrov add. M, καὶ om. P, 

5 λίϑον ἢ ξυλον PV, ξύλον ἢ λί- "5 ov δὲ M, δὲ οὐ P. 
Sov Μ An. 2 οὐ δὲ PM. 

δ ὁ ἀββᾶς εἶπεν P, ἀπόκρισις M. “1 ἐς τούτου om. PM. 


‘a vid. Gen. xlvii. 81 (Heb. xi. 91.) 
51 


10 


15 


20 


52 


παλαιουμένας καὶ ἀπαλειφομένας καίομεν, καὶ ἄλλας 
νέας" ποιοῦμεν, πρὸς ὑπόμνησιν μόνην ἀγαϑήν." 

2. Ὁ Ἰουδαῖος εἶπε-' διὰ τί βλασφημεῖτε λέγοντες" 
υἱὸν ἔγει ὁ 9€05; 

ὁ χριστιανός" Ἂ οὐχ ἡμεῖς ἐσμὲν" ou λέγοντες τοῦτο, 
ἀλλὰ καὶ 7 γραφὴ ὑμῶν . λέγει γὰρ ἽΝ Κύριος εἶπε πρός 
με υἱός μου εἶ σὺ, ἐγώ σήμερον γεγέννηγιά σειν 

ὁ Ἰουδαῖος ** οὐ τ “Σολομῶντος λέγει ὁ ψαλμός. 

ὁ χριστιανός" πόσου μέρους" τοῦ πόσμου ἐκυρί- 
ευσὲν ὁ Σολομῶν ; 

ὁ Ἰουδαῖος "" οὐδὲ τοῦ ἡμίσεος, οὐδὲ τοῦ τρίτου μέ- 
ρους τοῦ κόσμου." 

ὁ χριστιανός" ἄπουσον οὖν ἄρτι ον γουνεχῶς καὶ 
μώϑε"" ὅτι οὐ περὶ Σολομῶντος, ἀλλὰ περὶ Χριστοῦ" 
λέγει ὁ ψαλμός" εἶπε" * γὰρ ὅτι * Κύριος εἶπε πρὸς με 
υἱός μου εὖ συ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηνά σε: αἴτησαι 
παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ " καὶ δώσω σοι ἔϑνη τὴν κληρονομίαν Gov, 
καὶ τὴν κατασχεσίν σου τὰ πέρατα THS ys: ποιμανεῖς 
αὐτοὺς EV ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ, ὡς σπεύη κεραμέως συντρίψεις 
αὐτοὺς καὶ νῦν βασιλεῖς σύνετε." "" εἰπέ μοι ἄρτι, ov 
εἶπάς μοι οὐ κατέσχε Σολομῶν τὰ πέρατα τῆς γῆ, * πότε 
ἑποίμανεν αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ : πότε ὡς σπεύη 
κεραμέως συνέτριψεν αὐτοὺς τοὺς ἐχϑρούς ; "" οὐδέποτε." 


παλαιουμένας ἢ PM. τ καὶ νῦν βασιλεὶς σύνετε om. 


2 καινουργίας PMAn. PAn. 


44 


" " ‘ ν᾽ 935 ΄ 14 ᾿ . - ν ΄ ‘ 
μόνον ayaSny P, αγαϑὴν μο- εἰπὲ OVY μοι αρτι Gv* ποτὲ 


7 . . ~ ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ . ᾿ ~ ~ 
νον An., μόνον αγαϑὴν τῶν AYl- KHATECXEV τὰ πέρατα THS YS ὁ 
" " = ~ ᾿ " » J 
ων Μ. ι εἶπε V, εἶπεν Μ, om. P. Σολομῶν; Ῥ. εἰπέ μοι οὖν δυ 


2 


᾽ ” » ΕἸ ὥ ~ e 
λέγοντες ort PM. ἄρτι, Ἰουδαῖε, πάντως δῆλον καὶ 


3 εἶπεν add. Μ. ὁμωλογουύμενόν ἐστιν, ὡς εἴπομεν, 
«ἐσμὲν μόνοι PM. *yaport PM. ὅτι ἥμισυ τῆς γὴς Σολομῶν οὐ 
ὁ εἶπεν add. M. εἶπεν add. M. κατέσχεν, οὐδὲ τὸ τρίτον, ἐκτὸς 


* xai πύδον μέρος PMAn. καὶ μόνον τὴν Ἰουδαίαν γὴν" 

" εἶπεν add. M. λοιπὸν, πότε κατέδχεν ὁ Σολομῶν 

© οὐδὲ τὸ ἤμισυ, οὐδὲ τὸ τρίτον P, τὰ πέρατα τὴς γὴξ An. 

οὐδὲ τὸ ἡμιόυ, οὐδὲ τὸ τρίτον " πότε συνέτριψε τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς 

τοῦ κόσμου MAn, " εἶπεν add. M. αὐτοῦ ὡς δκεύη κεραμέως: P, πότε 

" ἄρτι om, PAn. δὲ ὡς δκεύηῃ περαμέως συνέτριψε 

53 ὠκριβῶς add. M. τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς αὐτοῖ ; An. 

" τοῦ Χριστοῦ PMAn. ἢ οὐδέποτε δηλονότι P, πάντως 

% λέγει PMAn. 1 ἐμοὶ P. οὐδέποτε An. 


* Psa. ii. 1. > Psa. ii. 7-9. 


53 


3. Ὁ Ἰουδαῖος: πῶς Aéyer’ “ sine Κύριος πρός pe 
αἴτησαι map’ ἐμοῦ"; καὶ yap εἰ" υἱὸς ἐστιν, ὡς λέγετε, 
πῶς λέγει ὃ ϑεὸς ὡς πρὸς δοῦλον αἴτησαι παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ; 
nat πάλιν πῶς" λέγει “<< ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά oe”; 


ὃ χριστιανός. 
υἱὸν," 
σπανδαλίφου" 


, 
καὶ παρασχῶ Gow" 
? ~ , 
αὐτοῦ λέγει" 
Seoronov καὶ ἀεὶ παρϑένου Μαρίας."" 


4. Ὁ Ἰουδαῖος. 


μου ἐγεννήθη, ὅτι καὶ 
ὁ χριστιανός" 


ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε ὅτι πρὸ τοῦ κόσμου ὅλου ἐγεννήθη. 5 
περὶ τοῦ εἰπεῖν TOV πατέρα πρὸς TOY 
“αἴτησαι παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ, καὶ δώσω σοι ΩΝ μὴ 
πολλάπις yap λέγει πατὴρ πρὸς τὸν 
υἱὸν αὐτοῦ" ἀπὸ πολλῆς ἀγάπης, αἴτησαί μὲ ὃ ϑέλεις 
παλιν" περὶ τοῦ εἰπεῖν," ““ ἐγὼ on- 10 
μερον γεγέννηκά σε," περὶ τῆς κατὰ σάρπα γεννήσεως 
εὐδοκίᾳ yap πατρὸς si ol Ex τῆς ἁγίας 
εἰ nat πείϑεις μὲ ὅτι ἐγεννήϑη ἐκ Μα- 
ρίας, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἔχεις oe δεῖξαι ὅτι καὶ πρὸ τοῦ πκόσ- 15 
' S205 ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς Gos λέγεις. Ξ 
μὴ ὅλα ὁμοῦ ἐρώτα ἀλλὰ ἕν καὶ ἕν᾽ 
καὶ ἐλπίξω εἰς τοὺς οἰκτιρμοὺς τοῦ ϑεοῦ ὅτι ἐκ τῶν 
γραφῶν ὑμῶν καὶ τῶν προφητῶν ὑμῶν παριστῶ παν- 
20 


Ta τὰ περὶ Χριστοῦ ὄντα ἀληϑῆ, καὶ περὶ αὐτοῦ v7’ 


αὐτῶν mpounpvySévta.’ 


5. Πλὴν τοῦτο ϑέλω μαϑεῖν ἐξ ὑμῶν: 


1 λέγετε ὅτι P. 7 eZ om. V. 

8 πῶς om. P. 

4 ov vior ὅτι Ῥ. 

5 wai δώσω Gor ἔϑνη om. P, ἔϑνη 
om. An. 

δ πολλάκις γὰρ ὁ βασιλεὺς λέχει 
πρὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ Ρ πολλὰ γὰρ 
καὶ βασιλεὺς πρὸς τὸν αὐτοῦ υἱὸν 
λέγει An. 

7 εἴ τι ϑέλεις καὶ παρέχω Gor pro 
ὁ ϑέλεις u.7.A. P, καὶ παρέχω Gor 
εἰ τι ϑέλεις An. 

* καὶ πάλιν PAn, 

° etzely ὅτι Ρ, 

°ort δὲ καὶ πρὸ αἰώνων τοῦ 
πατρὸς ἐγεννήϑη, ὁ Ξολομῶν, ὡς 
éx προδώπου αὐτοῦ τοῦ Lovoye- 
VOUS υἱοῦ, λέγει “πρὸ τοῦ τὰ ὄρη 
γενέσϑαι, πρὸ τοῦ τὰς πηγὰξ προ- 


' 6 Δαβὶδ 


éASeiv, πρὸ δὲ πάντων βουνῶν 
γεννᾷ me%*, ἐρωτοῦντι οὖν μοι 
εἶπέ, τίνα πρὸ πάσης τῆς UTIGEWS 
ἐγέννηόσεν ὁ Θεός; post Μαρίας 
add. P. 

‘nai ὅτι P, 

2 Aévere P. 

* OXPLOTIAVOS* πάντα TAN1OTHOW 
ὑμῖν ἐξ: τῶν γραφῶν ὑμῶν καὶ 
τῶν προφητῶν, ὅτι καὶ πρὸ τοῦ 
κὐόμου ἐγεννήϑη καὶ ὅτι ϑεός 
ἐότιν ὁ Χριότὸς, ὡς λέγομεν, καὶ 
τὰ περὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ πάντα ἀληϑῆ, 
καὶ τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ κηρυχϑέντα pro 
ὁ χριότιανός" μὴ ὅλα κ.τ.λ. P; ἴο- 
tum om. An. 

1 πλὴν τοῦτο ἐρωτῶντος μου εἰπέ 
P. πλὴν πρῶτον ϑέλω μαϑεῖν ἐξ 
ὑμῶν" An, 


Ὁ Prov. viii. 24-25. 


δά 


i κι ‘ Ud ‘ »“ " ’ 
βασιλεὺς ὧν καὶ προφητὴς καὶ ἀγιος, τίνα κύριον καὶ 
΄ τ᾽ 
δεσποτὴν εἴχεν ; 
ὁ Ἰουδαῖος ' τοῦτο ἐρωτημα οὐδ EYEL* O Ja pis yap 
κύριον ἀλλον οὐκ ἔγει, εἰ μὴ τὸν Seov τὸν ποιήσαντα 
‘ ? ‘ 
5 τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν. 
ς / ? ~ ᾽ ᾿ \ 3 σι. οΝ / 
ὁ χριστιανος" ορϑῶς εἴπας. idov ovr avtos* λέγει 
os “ , 3 ~ ᾽ 6 
περὶ Χριστοῦ" ort κύριος αὐτοῦ ἐστιν, ὅτι καὶ" πρὸ 
αἰώνων ἦἧ eyevvnsy εν yap τῷ ἑκατοστῷ ἐννατῳ" 
par pug λέγει οὕτως, “εἶπεν ὁ κύριος τῷ κορέῳ μου, 
10 κάξου Ἐν δεδιῶν μου" idov ouv αὐτὸς" τὸν υἱὸν 
κύριον + ὁμολογεῖ" πρὸς αὐτὸν γὰρ εἶπεν" ὁ πατὴρ, 
μετὰ τὴν ἁγίαν αὐτοῦ σάρκωσιν καὶ ἐλ ρμς “καάϑου 
ἐκ δεξιῶν μου, ἕως ἂν ϑῶ τοὺς ἐχϑρούς σου ὑποπόδιον 
τῶν ποδῶν σου" " “ἐν ταῖς λαμπροτησι τῶν ἁγίων 
15 σου, Ex yaorpos™ πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐγέννησα σε." τίς 
yap” ἐγεννήθη) πρὸ ἑωσφόρου: ἄρα περὶ τοῦ Adan 
λέγει; οὐδαμῶς" μετὰ δύο yap" ἡμέρας τοῦ ἑωσφόρου 
? 3 - . 
καὶ soda ἀστέρων ἐγένετο. ANN ἀρὰ" περὶ τοῦ εἰλημ.-Ἅ 
μένου" ὑμῶν λέγει; ἀλλ᾽" υἱὸν ΖΔαβὶδ'" λέγει" εἶναι" 
\ ‘ =. ᾽ / 
20 ὁ δὲ Δαβὶδ μετὰ πολλοὺς" τοῦ Adam EyevvnSn: ὁ δὲ 
"Ada ) ἡμέρᾳ ἐπλάσϑη" ot δὲ ἑωσφό τὲ 
δαμ τῇ ἕκτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀσϑη" οἱ δὲ Ewogopor τῇ τε- 
ταρτῃ" ἡμέρᾳ ἐγένοντο ὁ de eos λέγει περὶ τοῦ ἰδίου 
e s " ‘ + , . , 4 τ » ‘ 
υἱοῦ" ὅτι “πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐγέννησα “ σε," συ εἶ" ἱερεὺς 
: ‘ . com \ ‘\ / , ” 6 ἃ ’ 
εἰς τὴν αἰῶνα κατὰ τὴν Ta&Siv Medryioedén, τουτέσ- 


3 ἐρώτηπα τοῦτο Ῥ. 8 Δαβὶδ, τοῦ Δαβὶδ αὐτὸν P, 
" αὐτοῦ pro ἄλλον P, Δαβὶδ αὐτὸν An. 
“αὐτὸς ὁ Jafid PAn, "Ὁ λέγεται Ῥ, οὐ λέγεται An. 
" τοῦ χριόστοῦ PAn. ” πολλοὺς χρόνους PAn. 
6 καἱ Ort P, καὶ ὅτι καὶ An. Ἵ τετάρτῃ VAn., δ΄ P. 
᾿Ἰτῶν αἰώνων PAn. * pS PAn. 33. ὁ δὲ Seos περὶ τοῦ ἐδίου υἱοῦ 
9 οὖν abdrosom. Ρ; ἐδου οὖν τὸν λέγει ῬΑῃ. 

υἱὸν τοῦ ϑεοῦ An. " ἐγέννησα VAn., γεγέννηκα Ῥ, 
Ὁ κύριον ἑαυτοῦ P, κύριον ἑαυ- ™ καὶ ὅτι φησὶ post Ge add P. 

τοῦ καλεὶ An. 35. ef om. PAn. 
" καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν εἶπεν Ῥ. 3. ἐπείόσϑης Apa κἂν ἄρτι ὅτι περὶ 
3 καὶ ἐκ ͵ γαστρὸς Ῥ. τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ Seov ἡμῶν ioriv 
"- νὰροιι. ῬᾺ "γὰρ δύο ῬΑῃ. οὗτος ὁ λόγος; αὐτὸς γαρ ἰότιν 
5 ἦρα om, PAn. ἱξρεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα κατὰ τὴν 
᾿6 εὐἰλειμμένου V, τάξιν Μελχισεδὲκ, post Μελχισεδὲκ 
- ἀλλὰ PAn, ; add. P. 


® Psa. cix. 1. > Jbid. vers. 1. © Jhid. vers, 8. 4 Jbid. vers. 3-4. 


dd 


τιν ἱερεὺς τῶν ἔϑνων" καὶ γὰρ ὁ Μελχισεδὲκ" ἱερεὺς 
ἦν τῶν ἔϑνων," καὶ ἄρτον καὶ οἶνον 9 προσέφερεν, ὡς 
μαρτυρεῖ πάλιν ἡ γραφὴ ὑμῶν" ὁ ὅτι ὅτε ἐδέξατο τὸν 
Ἁβραάμ ὁ Μελχισεδὲπ EV ἄρτῳ nat οἴνῳ ἔϑυσε τῷ 
Jeo,” na 09s καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ἀρχιερεὺς παρέδωκεν ἡμῖν͵," 
ϑύειν αὐτῷ ἀναίμαλιτον ϑυσίαν κατὰ τὴν ταξιν Μελ- 
χισεδέρι. ἄκουσον οὖν πάλιν διὰ “Σολομῶντος λέγοντος 
tov υἱοῦ" “πρὸ τοῦ τὰ ὄρη γενέσϑαι, πρὸ τοῦ TAS 
πηγ ἐς προελθεῖν, πρὸ δὲ παντῶν τῶν “ἢ βουνῶν, γεννᾷ 
Poy δεῖξον pot πρὸ πάσης τῆς κτίσεως τίνα ὁ ϑεὸς 
ἜΡΟΝ Ἔ ὡσαύτως πάλιν ev τῷ Ἑβδομημοστα πρώ- 
ἀν μὰ heer Sa ΞΕΡΈ; 10 κρίμα σου τῷ βασιλεῖ 
ἌΝ καὶ ive δικαιοσύνην σου τῷ VIG τοῦ βασιλέως. a 
nai ἵνα μὴ εἴπῃς ὅτι ἘΠΕ Σολομῶντος λέγει," τῇ εὐϑὺς 
εἶπε, μετ’ ὀλίγους στίχους," “nat MAT AHUPLEVO EL ἀπὸ 
ϑαλάσσης ἕως Salacons, Lees: “ἐ πρὸ τοῦ ἡλίου δι- 
αμένει τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, 91 ἐς wal πρὸ τῆς σελήνης γενεᾶς 
γενεῶν."" ἰδοὺ ἐδειξὰ σοι σαφῶς, καὶ διὰ Silas καὶ 


cr 


10 


διὰ = ΤΉ ΓΗ: ὅτι πρὸ πάσης πτίσεως υτὸς " 


τρὸς" GIS οἶδε μόνος αὐτός. 


6. Πλὴν ἐκεῖνο εἴπατέ μοι' 
ς ? / \ > / 2 
ται ἢ adnSeta, τον εἰλημμένον 


7 καὶ γὰρ ὁ Μελχιδεδὲ: V. ὁ γὰρ 
MedAyioedéu PAn. 

* τῶν ἔϑνων ἦν iepevs P. om. An. 

39 χαὶ οἶνον καὶ ᾿ἄρτον P. οἶνον 
καὶ ἄρτον. An. 

° κυρίῳ Ῥ. 

"1 ὁ Χριστὸς ἀρχιερεὺς παρέδωπεν 
ἡμῖν V.6 Χριστὸς ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς ἡμῶν 
παρέδωκεν ἡμᾶς An, αὐτὸς ὁ πύυ- 
᾿ριος ἡμῶν ἐνετείλατο ἡμῖν Ῥ. 


" 9 ~ " , » 
Ξκαὶ αὐτοῦ δὲ παλιν ἀἁπκπουόδον 


61a ΞΙολομῶντος λέγοντος Tov υἱοῦ 


ὅτι Ῥ. ἄκπκουδον δὲ καὶ Ξολομῶντος 
λέγοντος περὶ τῆς πρὸ αἰώνων 
γεννήσεως τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ 
τοὺ ϑεοῦ An. 33 r@v om. PAn. 

3. δεῖξον μοι λοιπὸν τίνα 6 ϑεὸς 
πρὸ πάδης τὴς uTIGEWS ἐγέννηδεν 


© cf. Gen. xiv. 18 βα.' 
h Ibid. vers. 8. 


f Prov. viii. 24-25. 
i [bid. 17. 


En πα- 

20 
ὑμεῖς, καὶ εὐθέως φαίνε- 
ἐνδέχεσϑε᾽ καὶ" τί λέ- 


Ῥ. δεῖξόν μοι οὖν τίνα ὁ ϑεὸς 
παάδης τη κτίσεως ἐγέννησεν 


πρὸ 
An. 


QAM οὐκ av ἔχεις, @ Ἰουδαῖε, 
τοῦτο ἐπὸ TOV γραφῶν πιστωσαόσ- 
Sets ends ΕΣ 

* Om ἘΣ 


® Agvet 6 AafPid P. 

7 ὠἐναιόχυντῶν πάλιν, ὦ lovdaie 
post μη) add. P. 

δ ταῦτα εἴρηται P. 

® eySUS etme U.T.A. V. 
τί μετ᾽ ὀλίγα εἴρηκεν Ῥ. 

4 ἐγεννήϑη ὁ υἱὸς PAn. 

1 rov marpos PAn. 

Poe Can ἘΣ 

2 ηλειμμένον V. 

3 ὃν ἐκδέχεσϑε PAn. 

‘ καὶ om, PAn. 


ἄπουδον 


& Psa. Ixxi. 1. 
k Thid. 5 


10 


15 


20 


25 


᾿ "» 
δ εἶναι αὐτὸν Ῥ, etvatom. An. 


δθ 


γετε αὐτὸν εἶναι," Seov σαρκωϑθέντα, ἢ ἄνϑρωπον ψιλὸν 
GS τὸν Aapid ee TOUS λοιποὺς ἀνθρώπους; 

ὁ ἸΙουδαῖος" ἄνθρωπον αὐτὸν λέγομεν ὡς ἕνα τῶν 
προφητῶν καὶ ov ϑεόν' οὐκ ἔστι yap εἰ μὴ εἷς καὶ μόνος 
ὁ ϑεὸς," καὶ οὐ δύο ὡς" ὑμεῖς VOMIGETE. 

ἡ. Tore ὁ χριστιανὸς διεμαρτύρατο μεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ, 
λέγων τῷ ὄχλῳ," Βλέπετε κύριοι," τί λέγουσιν « ὅτι av- 
ϑρωπός ἔστι ψιλὸς" ὁ ἐρχόμενος Χριστὸς αὐτῶν." ἰδω- 
μεν" οὖν ἄρτι TOUS προφήτας, καὶ εἰ μὲν" Seov ἐκήρυ- 
ξαν τὸν ἐρχόμενον χριστὸν, δῆλον ὅτι ὁ ἐλϑων, καὶ" 
παρ᾽ ἡμῶν τῶν 'χριστιανῶν" πιστευόμενος © καὶ προσπυ- 
γούμενος, αὐτὸς ἐστιν ays as ὃ ὄντως ἀληθὴς" Χρισ- 
τὸς," ὃν δὲ ἐκδέχονται οὗτοι ὅτι ἔρχεται" πλάνος ἐστι 
καὶ ἀντίχριστος - εἰ δὲ πάλιν οὐ" παραστήσομεν " τοὺς 
προφήτας λέγοντας αὐτὸν Θεὸν," δῆλον ὅτι ἡμεῖς ἐσμὲν 
πλάνοι καὶ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀληϑεύουσι. 

, γι ἣν ᾽ \ { ὦν Hi. be \ A 
τοτὲ ἡνγέγπασεν "ἦ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἤγαγον avTol Tas Pif- 
λους αὐτῶν ἐκ τῆς ἰδίας συναγωγῆς, ἵνα " ἐξ αὐτῶν 
ἐλεγχϑῶσι."" 

8. Kat προλαβὼν ἐρωτᾷ. αὐτοὺς καὶ “λέγει “ εὐλογη- 
μέ γος ὁ ἐρχόμενος. Bana {1 οὗτός ἐστιν" ὁ ἐρχόμενος; 

ὁ Ἰουδαῖος" ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ ὑιὸς τοῦ Δαβίδ. 

ὁ χριστιανός " “εὐλογημένος 6 ἐρχόμενος EV ὀνόματι 
κυρίου" Seos κύριος καὶ ἐπέφανεν saint ἥν ἤρξαντο οὖν 
κράδειν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, ““ ἐπιφάνηϑθι ἡμῖν" ᾿ λέγει, μέλλοντα 


wai πιστευόμενος P, 


6 ὁ ϑεὸς VAn., ὁ om, P. " ὁ ὄντως ἀληϑὴς om. P. 
7 ὡς καϑωῶς P. xaSamep An, 2 Seos καὶ Xpioros P. 


~ ~ ~ v ᾽ 
τῇ φωνῇ; παντὶ τῷ οχλὼ λεέ- 


"Ort ἔρχεται οπν. An. καὶ λέγ ου- 


yor Ῥ. Ov ἔρχεσϑαι P, 
Ρ J ; - ᾿ , ᾽ν ᾿ ᾿ * 
* βλέπετε καὶ ἀκουξτε, ὦ κυρι. "παλιν ov V. μὴ P. παλιν μὴ An, 


ot Ῥ, 


"5 παραστήόωμεν PAn. 


8 ψιλὸς ori Ῥ, 6 ὃεὸν PAn. Χριστόν. 

“αὐτῶν Χριστὸς Ῥ. " ἡνάγκασεν (sic) V. 

" ἐνέγκωμεν PAn, " ὅπως Ρ. 

* μὲν om, PAn, ” SradeyS@orr P. 

᾿ Χριστὸς καὶ Seos ἡμῶν ὁ Aa- ἐπ εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν 
τρευόμενος post ἐλϑων add. Ρ, ὀνόματι κυρίου" Ῥ. 

* καὶ om. P, 3 ἐστιν οὗτος P. 

" τῶν χριότιαν ὧν om. P. * οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι P. 


* Psa. cxvil. 96, > Ib. vers, 26, 27. 


δὲ 


yap sng χρόνον. κπατασείσας δὲ αὐτοὺς ὁ χριστιανὸς 
τῇ χειρὶ " εἶπε, καλῶς ae ere μελλητιπκόν. ἐστιν᾿ 
ἐρχόμενον Sion καὶ κύριον " λέγει, εἰπων ““ϑεὸς κύριος 
καὶ ἐπέφανεν ἡμῖν." etre οὖν ἐπέφανεν, εἶτε ἐπιφαναι 
μέλλει," οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ὑμῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ἡμέτερος -" ὑμεῖς 
yap ἄνϑρωπον ἐκδέχεσϑε τὸν ἐρχόμενον, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ ϑεόν. 

ὁ δὲ Δαβὶδ κύριον nat ϑεὸν" τὸν ἐλθοντα καὶ ἐρχόμε- 
νον ἑκπήρυξεν " ὁμοίως καὶ ὁ " ᾿Αββαπκοὺμ" καὶ Ἡσαΐας " 
καὶ TAVTES OL προφῆται Seov τὸν ἐρχόμενον τὰ ἐκήρυξαν" 
Ἡσαΐας μὲν ἔλεγεν ® ὅτι ““ παιδίον ἐγεννήθη ἡμῖν, 010s 
καὶ ἐδόθη ἡμῖν - καὶ καλεῖται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ μεγάλης 
βουλῆς ἄγγελος, ϑαυμαστὸς σύμβουλος, Seos ἔἴσχυρος, 
ἑξουσιαστης, ἄρχων eionvns, πατὴρ τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶ- 
γος. γᾶς ὡσαύτῶσξ: καὶ ὁ Ap Baxody '® dnoiv “o eos 
ἀπὸ Θαιμὰν" ἥξει.) 9. καὶ Ἱερεμίας δὲ" φησὶν “ οὗτος 
ὁ ϑεὸς ἡμῶν, οὐ λογισϑήσεται ἕτερος πρὸς αὐτόν. ἔξευς 
μῶν" πᾶσαν ὁδὸν ἐπιστήμης ἐδωπεν a αὐτὴν Ἰαπὼβ τῷ 
παιδὶ αὐτοῦ, nat Ἰσραὴλ τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ ὑπ’ αυτοῦ. 
μετὰ ταῦτα ἐπὶ γῆς "ὃ ὥφϑη, καὶ τοῖς ανϑρώποις συναν- 
ἐστράφη "1 βλέπεις" ὅτι ϑεὸν adnSivov™® ἐκήρυξαν 
τὸν ἐπὶ γῆς ὀφϑέντα καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συναναστρα- 
φέντα. 


τέως TCV 


“μέλλοντα yap κ.τ.λ. V. 
tTixov ἐστιν Ῥ. 

" τῇ χειρὶ ὁ χριστιανὸς Ῥ. 

SSeov καὶ πύριον τὸν ἐρχόμε- 
vov P. 

᾿ ἐπιφανῆναι An, 

δ εἴτε οὖν ἐπέφανεν u.t.A. VAn. 


μελλη- 5 τὸν ἐρχόμενον Seov P, 

® λέγων P. λέγει An. 

7 > Gd os AG, = 
ποίος οὖν AV IPWTOS, 

pos, 

λοντος αἰῶνος; 


P. ποὶος ἄνϑρωπος, παϑὼς 


10 


15 


20 


HAS ὡς 
ὑμεὶς λέγετε, ψιλός ἐστι ϑεὸς ἐσχυ- 
ἐξουσιαστὴς, πατὴρ τοῦ μέλ- 
post αδῶνος add. 
υμεὶς 


εἶτε δὲ ἐπιφάναι μέλλει, εἶτε ἐπέ- 
pavev RP, 

° ὁ ἡμέτερος Ῥ. 

ὑμεῖς γὰρ ἄνϑρωπον ψιλὸν 
τὸν ἐρχόμενον ἐκδέχεσϑε, καὶ οὐ 
Seov P. ὑμεῖς γὰρ ἄνϑρωπον τὸν 
ἐρχόμενον ἐπδέχεσϑε, καὶ οὐ Seov 
An. 4" Secv nai κύρτον PAn. 

2 5 om. P. B-AuBanovu P. 

"ἡ Ἰερεμίας nat Madayias add. 
P. opotwms .7.A. ..... éxnovéav 
om. An. 


© Psa, cxvii. 26. 4 Isa. ix. 6. 


λέγετε, δύναται εἶναι ϑεὸς ἐσχυ- 
pos, ἐξουσιαστὴς, ἄρχων εἰρήνης, 
πατὴρ τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος ; add. 
An. 

"AuPanovie ὁ προφήτης P. 

" Oenav P. 

” 6€ radiv P. 

21 ἐξεῦρεν PAn. 

Ὁ wai ἔδωκεν PAn, 

3 éxi yns VAn., éxi rns ys P. 

* Spas P. 

35. ἐλῃϑῆ Ρ. 


© Hab, iii. 3. Baruch iii. 36-38. 


58 


9. Καὶ πάλιν ὁ Δἀβὶδ λέγει περὶ αὐτοῦ ὅτι" ““ ἐβασί- 
λευσεν ὁ ϑεὸς ἐπὶ πάντα" τὰ ἔθνη" " διὰ τί οὐκ εἶπεν " 
ἐβασίλευσεν ὁ ϑεὸς ἐπὶ τοὺς Ἰουδαίους; καὶ πάλιν 
ὅτι ““ἴδωσαν" πάντα τὰ ἔϑνη τὸ σωτήριον τοῦ Seov 
ἡμῶν "5 καὶ πάλιν τὰ ἐϑνη κροτήσατε Χεῖς 
ρας" καὶ παλιν “εἴπατε ἐν τοῖς ἔϑνεσιν ὅτι κύριος 
ἐβασίλευσεν. WA? καὶ Ἡσαΐας πάλιν περὶ ὑμῶν, μάλλον 
δὲ δι αὐτοῦ ὁ ϑεὸς εἶπεν," ὅτι * καλέσω TOV Ov ἀμὴν μου 


‘rTAavTa 


, ‘ ‘ ᾽ 2) 61 
λαον μου, καὶ TOV ἐλο δεν οὐκ ἠἡλεημένον, του- 


10 


τέστι τὴν συναγωγὴν ὑμῶν." 
TUT PLA PXNS, προφητεύων περὶ Χριστοῦ," 


ς ’ ‘ ‘ ς 
ὡσαυτῶς παὶ Ιακωβ O 
εὐλογῶν τὸν 


Ἰούδαν, εἶπεν " “οὐκ ἐπλείψει ἄρχων ἐξ Ἰούδα οὐδὲ" 


ἡγούμενος ἐκ τῶν μηρῶν αὐτοῦ ἕως ἂν ἔλϑη ᾧ 
κειται καὶ αὐτὸς προσδοπία ἐθνῶν." 
δρες, es Ἰακὼβ εἶπεν ** οὐκ ἐκλείψει ἄρχων ἐξ Ἰούδα 
ἡγούμενος ἐκ τῶν μηρῶν αὐτοῦ ἕως ἂν ἔλϑη ᾧ" 


15 
οὐδὲ "" 


" ἀπό- 
τ προσέχετε, av- 


ἀπόπειται,"" BOREL Oe ὁ χριστὸς, ““ καὶ αὐτὸς προσδοκία 


718 οδς e815? 


19 


ἔϑνων. 


προσδοκῶσιν" 
1 λέγει περὶ αὐτοῦ An., περὶ av- 
τοῦ λέγει Ῥ, λέγει 
ort V. 

* πάντα om. PAn. 

5" εἶπεν ὅτι PAn. ‘* eidwo6av P. 

5 γαὶ πάλιν ὁ Aafid “ πάντα τὰ 
ἔϑνη ὅσα ἐποίησας ἤξουσιν xai 
προσκυνήσουσιν ἐνώπιόν Gov, xv- 
ριε, καὶ δοξασουσιτὸ ὄνομα Gov ὅτι 
μέγας εἶ OL, καὶ ποίων ϑαυμάσια 
Ov εἶ ὁ ϑεὸς μόνος.) καὶ Μαλα- 
χίας δὲ περὶ τῶν ἔϑνων διαῤ- 
ῥήδην φάόσκει, λέγων “οὐκ ἔστιν 
μου ϑέλημα ἐν ὑμὶν," τουτέστιν 
ἐν τοὶς Ἰουδαίοις, " διότι ἀπὸ ἀνα- 
τολῶν ἡλίου καὶ Ews δυσμῶν τὸ 
ὄνομά μου δεδόξασται ἐν τοῖς ἔ5- 
γεσιν  Ἀ post ἐβασίλευσεν add, P. 

" καὶ Ἡδαΐας πάλιν περὶ ὑμῶν, 
κ.τ.λ. V, καὶ πάλιν διὰ τοῦ Ὡσηὲ 
τοῦ προφήτου λέγει Ῥ, καὶ πάλιν 
Ὁσηὲ. An. 


5 Psa. xivi. 9. 
© Hos, ii, 23. 


>» Psa. xcvii. δ, 
‘ Gen. xlix. 10. 


μάτην προσδοκῶσιν δ 
ὃν γὰρ προσεδοκοῦμεν τὰ ἔϑνη Χρισ- 


περὶ ἑαυτοῦ 


Ἰουδαῖοι ὃν 


7 καὶ τὸν ἡλεημένον κι.τ.λ. V, καὶ 
τὴν οὐκ ἡγαπημένην ἡγαπημένην 
P, καὶ τὴν ἠλεημένην οὐκ ἡλεημέ- 
vyv An. 

δ τὴν συναγωγὴν ὑμῶν V, τὴν 
ἐοιλησίαν Ῥ, τὴν δυναγωγὴν τῶν 


Ἰουδαίων An. 


" τοῦ χριστοῦ καὶ Ῥ. 

” εἶπεν om. et ἐξ οὗ ἔμελλεν Χριό- 
TOS τὸ κατὰ σάρκα παραγίνεσϑαι, 
οὕτω πῶς φησὶ post Ἰούδαν add. P, 

" οὐδὲ VAn., καὶ Ρ. 

3 ᾧ PAn., δ V. 

" ᾧ ἄνδρες P. 

- ᾧ PAn., ὃ Ls 


% ody εἶπεν τὸν ἐρχόμενον ἔδεσ- 


4 καὶ P, 


Sat προσδοκίαν Ἰουδαίων, ἀλλὰ 
προσδοκίαν ἔϑνων post ἔϑνων 
add. P. 

" ὥστε PAn, 

"ἡ προσδοκοῦσιν P, 

” προσκυνοῦσι P, 
¢ Paa. xivi. 1. 4 Psa. χοῦ. 10. 


© Psa. Ixxxv. 9-10. » Mal. i. 10-11. 


59 


20 


\ “ \ > \ ~ ᾿ bY ᾿ 
Tov, idov nASev:* dia τοῦτο" ἐξέλιπεν apy@v & 
γι / ς / / \ > / 

Ιουδα καὶ nyovpevos καὶ " mavta Ta ayaa. 
Lees ~e / 23 24? Fy ey 4 ¢ , 
ἐπεὶ δεῖξον "" μοι ἂν οὐ ἑσταυρωϑὴ 0 χριστος; 
c ~ a 2, 
ποῖος προφήτης εὑρέθη ἕν" δ, ; ποῖον βασίλειον * ἔγετε 
» fs a 
σήμερον ; ποῦ εἰσὶν ot κριταὶ ὑμῶν ; ποῦ οἱ ἄρχοντες; 
» ς \ ~ 
ἐξέλιπον." ποῦ at ϑυσίαι ὑμῶν ; ποῦ ὁ ναὸς ὑμῶν ;” 
᾿ \ τι 5 \ \ / ~ ἢ ἢ 
idov κεῖται ἔρημος κατὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ χριστοῦ " ἡμῶν, 
= 4 / ? \ . ? \ ᾽ 
τοῦ εἴποντος OV py μείνῃ λίϑος εἰς avtov”® ἐπὶ λίϑον."" 
3 N on ? , ¢ / ~ » > 
apa py” οὐκ ἐγένετο ὁ λόγος τοῦ χριστοῦ; εἶπεν "" 
bir Sai Ae Page: ~ Σ , ee 
ἑλευσονταᾶι καὶ apovot ᾿ωμαῖοι τὴν βασιλείαν ad 
Ps 7 \ ᾿ ’ ie » δ » 
ὑμῶν") “ καὶ idov ἔἐπηρϑη ἡ βασιλεία ἐξ ὑμῶν καὶ 


¢ , \ 6 λ ip \ ς 8 , ~ , \ δ 
n προφητεία καὶ ἢ λατρεία καὶ n ϑυσία. ποῦ εισὶν αἱ 


/ τι ’ , > \ ? , oye \ 
mianes*® as élafete; ἰδου ἀπώλοντο. ποῦ ἢ κπιβωτος 
¢ εὖ; “ὦ 7 - \ ay ᾿ » \ 
υμῶν τῆς OtaSN UNS 5°" ἰδουου φαίνεται. ποῦ TO ϑυσιασ- 
/ ¢ > , ~ 38 
THPLOV ὁ ἑποίησε ἘΠΕ ΟΣ ποῦ ἡ ῥαβδος ἡ βλαστή. 
GaGa; ποῦ " στάμνος καὶ τὸ μάννα; ποῦ ἡ ἑπισπίασις 
τοῦ ναοῦ καὶ ὁ καϑαρισμὸς τοῦ αἵματος; ποῦ τὸ πῦρ τὸ 
, ’ = ? ~ ~ ¢ ~ ξ 2 
κατερχόμενον EX τοῦ οὐρανοῦ; ποῦ παρ᾽ υμῶν * εἷς αντὶ 
ὁ β eh Ay Joe ue Sey : ppt to Be 
Μωυσέως; ποῦ" Eva προφήτην ευρίσπετε ; ποῦ ἡ οβεῦ- 
\ ~ 
γομητρα nat TO μαννα: οὐδὲν alnS@s ἔχετε, οὐδὲν" 
\ \ ~ ~ \ \ 
κατὰ τὴν τῶν τριῶν παίδων paryy™ THV λέγουσαν ™ 
ἐς oun ἔστιν ἕν τῷ καιρῷ τούτῳ ἄρχων καὶ προφήτης 
καὶ ἡγούμενος" οὐδὲ ὁλοκαύτωσις, οὐδὲ ϑυσία, οὐδὲ 


οὃν γὰρ τὰ ἔϑνῃ προδδοκοῦδσδι ™ εἶπεν Grit PAN. 
4 75 4 ‘ ‘ [4] ΄ r Fe, . ~ 
Xpi6rov, ΛΕ: An., οι yap ov oi ‘Pwatot nai apovorr 


10 


20 


ug’ 


mpo6douxotpmev τὰ ἔϑνη, HASEV* ΡᾺ ὑμῶν τὴν βασιλείαν P, οἱ Ῥωμαῖοι 


1 διὰ τοῦτο καὶ An., ἐξ τούτου καὶ ἀροῦσιν ὑμῶν τὸ ἔϑνος, 


Ὁ - ἊΝ κ ’ κ᾿ ν , 

ovv δῆλον ort Ῥ. τὴν πόλιν καὶ τὸ βασίλειον An, 
9 ‘ 9 Ν " . , ‘ 

ov μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ Ρ. ΞΘ Po Nat TOU. HFA, 


22 


8 ἐπεὶ, δεῖξον V, ἐπίδειξον P. ϑυσία om. An. 
* wow λοιπὸν, ὦ Ἰουδαῖε P. 86 rAdxuat P. 


καὶ 


rap P. ὅ rns διαϑηκης ὑμῶν P. ὑμῶν 


οὐ Baoiréa P. om. An. 
7 ovn ἐξέλιπον naS@s y προφη- “δή PAn., ov V. 


τεία λέγει; P. % Suir P. χοῦ map x.7.A.. 


8 ὑμὼν om. P. Μωυσέως ; om. An, 
" τοῦ χριότοῦ καὶ ϑεοῦ P. 4. ποῦ κἄν Ῥ. 


’ ‘ . . . ~ ~ , 
Ὁ 625 αυτὸν PAn. om. 1 τὴν φωνὴν TOV τριῶν παΐδων 


> qe zt ᾽ Η ͵ > 
ἐπὶ AtSov ὧδε P, ἐπὶ λίϑον én’ PAn. 


" , 9 ‘ κ᾿ [ ~ ‘ 
avrov An. 3 τὴν περὶ ὑμῶν λέγουσαν P, 


2 477 om. P. τὴν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν AEyovoar An, 


ΓΝ Matt. xxiv. 2. k John xi. 4°. 


60 


προσφορὰ, οὐδὲ ϑυμίαμα, οὐ τόπος τοῦ καταπῶσαι" 


ἐνώπιον τοῦ ϑεοῦ," καὶ εὑρεῖν ἔλεος." 
᾽ = ς ae ” 45 
πον ἐξ ὧν υμῖν ἑδωπεν 


ποῖον γὰρ τό- 


ὁ ϑεὸς ἔχετε σήμερον ; ἀλλὰ 


πάντα ταῦτα ἀφείλετο Ἂ ἐξ ὑμῶν ded cone καὶ ἡμῖν αὐτά." 


5 κἂν τὸ Σινᾶ εἴπῃς ὄρος" 


κατεδέξω, ἀλλὰ «ἄριστος ἐκεῖ δοξαδξεται σήμερον" 
ἑπέρασας εἴπης, 
ἐκεῖ βαπτισϑέντος αὐτὸς παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἐκεῖ δοξαξεται" 
τὴν Ἱερουσαλὴμ καὶ τὴν Σιών σου τὴν παλαιὰν ™ 

ἀλλὰ Χριστοῦ ἐπεῖ σταυρώϑενψοι τὰ αὐτοῦ παϑήματα 
σήμερον" 
ἐλαιῶν εἴπῃς, καὶ τὴν κοιλάδα τοῦ Mecapie 
Χριστοῦ. ἐκεῖθεν ἀναληφϑέντος * 
κἂν Βηϑλεὲμ τὴν πολιν Japs” δητήσῃς," 
Χριστοῦ ἐρεῖ τεχϑέντος ὡς EV οὐρανῷ éuei δ" δοξάξεται 
καὶ τί λέγω τὴν Σιῶν, καὶ Βηϑλεὲμ, καὶ τὸν 


τὸν Ἰορδάνην ὅπου" 


10 


ἐκεῖ προσπυνοῦνται" 


ἑται" 
15 
πάντοτε" 


ὅπου TOV νόμον. ἐδέξωῳω καὶ οὐ 


49 ες 
καν 

ἀλλὰ Χριστοῦ 

κἂν 


εἴπῃς, 


τῶν 
ἀλλὰ 
αὐτὸς καπεῖ μεγαλύν- 
ἀλλὰ 


nav®™ τὸ ὄρος 


Ἰορδάνην ; * πάρελϑε δύσιν, ἐπισκοπησον. ἀνατολὴν, 


ἐκδήτησον τὴν ὑπ’ οὐρανὸν olny,” 


αὐτὰς TAS Bpetravi- 


nas νήσους, αὐτὰ τὰ ἑσπέρια καὶ ἔσχατα τοῦ κόσμου, 


20 


peva”™ 


καὶ" εὑρήσεις τὰ μὲν Ἰουδαίων nat Ἑλλήνων σιωπώ- 
Ἁ - ‘ 

μενα, ta δὲ Χριστοῦ mavti™ 

καὶ πιστευόμενα καὶ βεβαιουμενα. καὶ μὴ μοι 


κηρυττόμενα καὶ τιμῶ- 


εἶπῃς ὦ ὅτι ἰδοὺ σήμερον καταπονούμεθα ot χριστιαν οἱ 


καὶ αἰχμαλωτιξόμεϑα, τοῦτο yap ἐστι τὸ μέγα," 


ad ἡγούμενος κιτ.λ....... κα- 
ταπῶσδαι om. Ρ. οὐδὲ ὁλοκαύτωσις 
κιτ.λ. .... καταπῶδαι οὨ. AN. καὶ 
ra ἑξῆς add. PAn. 

“οὐ ἔστιν τόπος add P. 

” ἔδωκεν ὑμῖν PAn. 

“ ὠἐφείλετον,, ἐπῇρεν An., ἦρεν Ῥ, 

“ καὶ ἡμῖν αὐτὰ ἔδωκεν Ῥ. καὶ 
ἡμὴν αὐτοὺς ἔδωπεν An, 

“ ὄρος εἴπῃς Ῥ. ὄροξ om. An. 

“ ἑλλὰ Manet σήμερον Χριστὸς 
δοξαζεται Ῥ. 

* ὅπου VAn. ὃν Ρ. 

Ἵ Σιὼν τὴν παλαιάν σου Ῥ. 

@ προσκυνεῖται Ῥ. ; 

53 εἰ καὶ P, eire An. 


Ἰορδάνην ; 


ὅτι ὑπὸ 


“εἴπῃς post Ἰωδσαφεὶτ add. P. 

5. ἐκεῖϑεν avadnpSévros Χριδ- 
τοῦ Ρ. 

5 χὴν Βηϑλεέιι πόλιν Δαβὶδ An, 
τὴν πόλιν 4αβιὲδ Βηϑλεὲμ Ῥ, 

“, ζητήσεις Ρ, εἴπῃς An. 

* καπεὶ PAn, 

Ὁ Βηῃϑλεὲμ, καὶ τὴν Ξιῶν, καὶ τὸν 
Ρ, Βηϑλεὲμ, καὶ Σιὼν, 
καὶ Ἰορδανην; An. 

δ ὅλην om. An, πάρελϑε δύσιν, 
ἐπιόσκόπησον ἀνατολὴν post ὅλην 
add. V. * καὶ ἐκεῖ P. 

“5 πάντα PAn. 

“5 καὶ τιμωμενα om. P. 

“ϑαυμαστὸν P. 


' “Hymn of the Three Children,"’ vers. 14. 


61 


, Bl , 
TOGOVT@V ἔϑνων SIGKOMEVOL 


/ \ 
μουμενοι, τὴν πίστιν © 
” 
σβέννυται," nat οὔτε" 
I 
οὔτε" 


\ - 
ἔχομεν, OTAVPOUS ™ 


᾿ \ 
ἔστιν ὁ eos," ὡς" 


χριστιαν οἱ συνεχώρει ie 


ἡμᾶς" 


ἡμῶν ἑστῶσαν “" 
τὸ βασίλειον ἡμῶν κατήργηται 
at ἐκκλησίαι ἡμῶν τ ἀμμλλμει ἀλλὰ Kiss ava- 
μέσον TOV ἔϑνων τῶν διωπόντων Ἷ" 
πήσσομεν, 
μοῦμεν, ὠῤνη ων Her Svoias.” 
él cal ὅτι πλανώμεϑα ot 


\ , \ 
UAL μισούμενοι καὶ πολε- 
» μ 
ἔχομεν “ καὶ ov 


ἡμᾶς "" BAG ONS 5 
Ὦ ϑυσιαστήρια " οἰποδο- 
ἀρα τοιούτως " ἀδιπκὸς 


" πλανᾶσϑαι ἀπόλλυσϑαι"" 


τῇ πλάνῃ TOUT@YV γένος ἀνθρώπων; δ un γένοιτο. καί- 10 
τοι γὲ οὐκ ἐπαύσατο πάντοτε" ΕΟ μοδμεγσὶ ἡ πίστις 
ἡμῶν nal ἱσταμένη καὶ" τ μῇ ἐξαλειφομένη 

10. Ei ἄρα κα αὴ ἦν πῶς οὐ συνεχώρησεν ὁ Seos’ σβε- 
σϑῆναι ἀπὸ τοσούτων Ἑλλήνων, ἀπὸ Περσῶν, ἀπὸ Zapa- 
κηνῶν ;" μὴ yap μοι εἴπητε ὅτι παιδευόμεϑα ot χρισ- 15 
τιανοί." ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖνο μοι ἐρευνήσατε" πῶς ἡμῖν τοῖς πλα- 


tf e , \ , / ~ «ὦ ¢ 
νωμένοις, ὡς λέγετε, τὴν βασιλείαν πασης τῆς γῆς ὁ 


¥ , 
ϑεος" ἐπίστευσε; 
» ? / 
καὶ νῦν OVOELS κατηργησεν * 


6 


σ' 


ἡ πίότις PAn. 
ζόταται PAn. 
ἔχομεν om, PAn, 
παύεται PAn. 

° vai οὔτε V, οὐδὲ PAn, 

7 o¥dé PAn. 

8? Gh An: 

τ τῶν UPATOVYTMY Kai διῳπόν- 
τῶν PAn. 

5 uUas nai Ὁ. 

™ αἱ σταυροὺς PAn. 

τὸ anyvvouev Ῥ. 

τὸ καὶ ϑυσιαότήρια P, καὶ ἐκπλη- 
δίας An. 

7 wai ϑυδσίας ἐπιτελοῦμεν P, Sv- 
δίας ἐπιτελοῦμεν An, 

τε ἦρα οὖν P, 
τοιοῦτος PAn., 
ὁ ϑεὸς ἐότιν P, ἐότιν om. An. 

δι Ori VAn. 

δ ἤφιεν PAn. 

ὃ οὕτως add, An. 

4 πλανᾶσϑαι ἀπόλλυσϑαιν, πλα- 
νᾶόσϑαι ἐδουὺ λοιπὸν χιλίους χρόνους 


6 


a 


67 


68 


79 


80 


- \ ~ ~ 
πῶς τὴν τοῦ χριστοῦ" σφραγίδα μέχρι 
ἐπᾶραι ἐξ ἡμῶν ἴσχυσε; 


ἀπολέδϑαι Ῥ, ἐδοὺ λοιπὸν πόσοι 
χρόνοι ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ ἐπολέσϑαι τῇ 
πλάνῃ An. 

“ty πλάνῃ τοσοῦτον γένος καὶ 
πλῆϑος ἀνϑρώπων PAn. 

δ πάντοτε οὐ" ἐπαύσατο P. 

7 μᾶλλον καὶ P. 

8 un VEvVOITO. HaITOLHK.T.A. ..... 
ἐξαλειφομένῃ om. An. 

1aurnv ὁ ϑεὸς P. 

3 ἀπὸ Ξηλαβῶν add. P. 

ip, Fs EA χριότια- 
vot V, μὴ yap μοι τοῦτο δποπη- 
δῆτε ἡ δἶπητὲ OTL ἄρτι ELS τῷ κπ' 
ταῦτα ἔτη παιδευόμεϑα οἱ χριόσ- 
tiavot P, un yap τοῦτο GKOTNH- 
OnTAL ᾿ εἰπηται ὅτι ἄρτι εἰς TOG- 
Avra ἔτη παιδευόμεϑα ἀπὸ τῶν 


Ἰδραηλιτῶν éSv@v An, 


Sénunvevoate P, épunvevoat 
An. 

56 Seos om. P. 

5 χρυσίου An, 


᾿ καταργῆσαι PAn. 


62 


πόσοι βασιλεῖς ἔϑνων, Περσῶν," Appa pov ® τοῦτο ἐδο- 
κίμασαν καὶ οὐδαμῶς ἴσχυσαν: iva δείξῃ ὁ Seos ὅτι 
HAV διωκώμεθα ov  Aasbilapaed, ἀλλ᾽ ἡμεῖς πάντων βασι- 
λεύομεν, ἡμεῖς πάντων" κυριεύομεν ᾿ τὸ yap μεϑ᾽ 
ἡμῶν καὶ En rs βασιλείας ἡμῶν σημεῖον τοῦ Χριστοῦ 
ἔστι σήμερον." ἐπεῖ εἰπέ μοι εἰ μὴ σημεῖον ὡς " αἰω- 
γιος" avinnyrtos καὶ ἀνεδ ἄλειπτος 1) πίστις " τῶν 
χριστιανῶν γκαὶ 1) β ΟΎΚΕΙΑΣ " πῶς τὸν σταυρὸν " πάντες 
ὑμεῖς καὶ or ἐχϑροὶ"" ἡμῶν ἌΜΜΡΕΕΕ eng} βλασφημεῖτε ; es 
ἀλλὰ καὶ av? χρυσοῦν "σταυρὸν" ᾿ἴδητε, βδελύσσεσϑε" 

καὶ ἀποστρέφεσϑε. ὄντως καλῶς περὶ ὑμῶν ὁ Δαβὶδ" 
εἶπεν ™ ¢é ὀφθαλμοὺς ἔχουσι nat oun ὄψονται, καρδίαν" 

ἔγουσι καὶ οὐ συνήσουσιν. 788 aS ὅπερ πολεμεῖτε τοῦτο 
ποϑεῖτε, καὶ ὅπερ βδελύσσεσϑε * τοῦτο προϑύμως κατα- 
δέχεσθε παραδόξως νικώμενοι ; γιαὶ * εἰ ἄρα - φρόνησιν 
εἴχετε" ἤρπει καὶ ὑμῖν" πᾶσι" τοῦτο τὸ jl acne καὶ 


Or 


καὶ" 


10 


τὸ πρᾶγμα εἰς τὸ πεῖσαι καὶ δεῖξαι "Ὁ 
αἰῶνας πανταχοῦ " 


τοῦ χριστοῦ εἰς τοὺς " 
πανταχοῦ" πολιτεύεται. 


"Ἰουδαίων add, Ρ. 

* "Appa Bov PAn., Apa Bor V. 

© βασιλεύομεν, ἡμεὶς πάντων om, 
P. ἡμεὶς πάντων κυριεύομεν OM. AN, 

"ro γὰρ μεϑ᾽ κιτ.λ. PV, τὸ γὰρ 
σημεῖον τοῦ χρυσίου τῆς βασιλείας 


᾿ - ἊΝ - » ~ ᾽ - 
ἡμῶν, σημεῖον TOV χριότου αὐτοῦ 


ἐστὶν " An. 

” ξότιν Ῥ, ἦν ὅτι An. 

" αἰώνιον Ῥ. a» P. 

δ ἡ πίότις V, πιότις P, ἦν ἡ πίότις 
An, 

% ai 
vay; P, 

" row χριστοῦ add, PAn. 
οἱ λοιποὶ ἐχϑροὶ P, καὶ οἱ ἐχϑροὶ 
om. An. 

” μισοῦντες PAn, 

Ὁ βλασφημοῦντες, ἀποστρέψαι ov 
δύνασϑε, ἀλλὰ τοῦτον προϑύ- 
μῶς καταδέχεσθες; P, βλασφημοῦν- 
res, ἐκπεπτώκατε; πῶς τὸν σταυ- 
ρὸν ix τοῦ χρυσίου ἀπαλεῖψαι οὐ 


βασιλεία τῶν χριόστια- 


θὲ "Ὁ ὁ σταυρὸς 
βασιλεύει, 
πόσοι τὴν πίστιν ἡμῶν καὶ 
δι rade, CAAA καὶ τοῦτον προϑύ.- 
M@3 ὀἔέχευϑε; An. 

Ἵ éav PAn. 22 γρυσὸν P, 

3 βδελύσεσϑε P. 

* χωρὶς Gravpow An. 

356 ὁ AaBid περὶ ὑμῶν P. 

* καἱ ὁ Ἡσαΐας add. P. 

καὶ καρδίαν Ῥ. 

* συνιοῦσι PAn. 

Ὁ βδελυττεόϑε P, * καὶ om, P. 

3! ἦρα οὖν P, dpa νοῦν An, 

3 καὶ νοῦν add, P. 

8 Duty καὶ pro καὶ ὑμὴν PAn. 

“ roils ἀπίστοις add, P. 
ὁ rd Onusiov τοῦτο P, 

5 πεῖσαι wai δεῖξαι V, δεῖξαι καὶ 
πεῖσαι PAn, 

7 ἡ) πίστις καὶ add, PAn. 

* rovs om, PAn. 

Ὁ ravras P, πάντοτε An, 

“ πανταχοῦ V, καὶ παντὶ τῶ 
xo6u@ Ῥ, πανταχοῖ πολιτεύεται 
om, An. 


® Jer. v. 21. 


63 


\ μῶ ~ ’ 
τὴν ἐκηλησίαν κλεῖσαι καὶ καταργῆσαι ἐδοκίμασαν καὶ 
? ? ? ~ ¢ / 
ovx ἰσχυσαν; al’ αυτοὶ μὲν TAPAS ov, ὁ δὲ ἐς ϑεμέ- 
+ ς 
Atos" ἡμῶν Kal ἡ πίστις " ἵσταται ἀσάλευτος" διὰ 


τον " Χριστὸν tov" εἰπόντα “ 
τισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς." © 
Μαξιμιανὸς; "' ποῦ ἔστιν " 
πασιανοὸς, ee 
ρας ANOKTELVAYTES ; 
μηδὲ πλείσαντες,"" 
oun épevoato™ 
ks ; 
δια TO OVOMA μου" 
7 μὴ μισῆτξε τῇ ἡμᾶς, μήτε" 
πῆτε" ἡμᾶς, πάντως" 
TOV Χριστὸν ® 


99554 


καὶ a εἶπεν 


γινόμενα, καὶ 


δὲ τοῦτο, ἀλλὰ 
na’ ἡμέραν “" 

προσκυνοῦμεν." 
γέλιον ἐν 


“1 τῆος πίστεως add. Ῥ, τῆς éxxAn- 
δίας add. An. 

* wai ἢ miotis om. P. 

πο roy om. PAn. 

* ovr@s add. PAn. 

δ εἰρηκότα P, ὁρίσαντα An, 

Ὁ Ὁ Atondiriavos; P, 6 A1toxdAn- 
τιανός; An. 

PSO Fe 

Suai Μαξιμιανὸς om. et ποῦ 
ἐστὶν ὁ Νέρων ; ποῦ ὁ Ovecracia- 
vos; add. An. 

9 ἔστιν om. PAn. 

ὃ ποῦ ἔστιν Ovedraciavos om. 
PAn. ποὺ ὁ Μαξιμιανὸς add, An. 

*! rovs τοῦ Ἀριοτοῦ P, rovs Χιριῦ- 
τοῦ An, 2 κιγηόαντες P, 

53 καὶ ἡ πίστις αὐτοῦ add. P. 

4 ἐπαυσατοῬ. 

ὅδ καὶ παλιν “ἐπὶ βασιλεὶς καὶ 
ἡγεμόνας ἀἐχϑήσεσϑε διὸ τὸ ὄνομά 
μου ?f add. Ῥ, καὶ παλιν “ ἐπὶ Baci- 

υ of. ii, Tim. ii. 19. 
© of. Mark xvi. 15, 


ποῦ ἐστι Διοκλητιανοὸς," 
Ἡρώδης; 
nal AV TES οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ τοὺς" 
τὴν δὲ πίστιν ἡμῶν poy παύσαντες 
καὶ αὐτοὶ μὲν ἀπώλοντο, ὁ δὲ Χριστὸς" 
εἰπωῶν ““ἔσεσϑε μισούμενοι ὑπὸ παντῶν 
ὃν οὖν & τῶν δύο ἐπιλέξασϑε, 
ὑμεῖς μήτε“ 
δεικνύετε, καὶ μὴ ϑέλοντες," 
ἀληθεύοντα, τὸν εἰπόντα" 
μισούμενοι ὑπὸ πάντων διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου." οὐ μόνον 
ἡμῖν " 


εἶπεν ὅτι ““κηρυχϑήσεται 
μά = A 9 616 
ολῷ τῷ ποσμῳῷ. 

Ἵ Ἵ / 


¢ Matt. xvi. 18. 
f Matt. x. 18. 


ὅτι “πύλαι ἄδου OD πα- 


Or 


nar" 
ῳ “ 3 

ποῦ ἐσ ΑΗ: Ουεσ- 
/ 

μαρτυ- 


10 
\ MN ἋἋ as 
Ta EVN; n €aVv 


ὅτι (ἔσεσθε 
15 
ἅτινα ϑεωροῦμεν 
ἐπιπλεῖον αὐτὸν ὡς ϑεὸν 
τὸ evay- 


ἐς εἰ μὴ ἀφή- 


tad J 
ὌΠ ὧν 


εἶπεν 
Asis καὶ ἡγεμόνας ἀχϑήσεσϑε Eve- 
μὲν ἐμοῦ" add, An. 
6 2) un μισεῖτε Ῥ, ἢ μιδεῖτε An. 
unre om, ἘΣ 
nde ἘΣ 
8 uioeire P, 
60 δ. pyre ΕΣ ἈΠ Δι 
πάντως om, An. 
δ Bovadcuevor P. 
τες om. An. 
ΟΣ Seov P. 
> ἀληθεύοντα, τὸν εἰπόντα V, 
ἀληθεύοντα εἰπόντα ἡμῖν <An., 
ἀληϑινὸν προειπόντα ἡμὶν Ῥ. 
% uty om. PAn. 
% xa ἡμέραν ϑεωροῦμεν PAn, 
ὁ προσκυνοῦμεν PAn., προόπυ- 


καὶ μὴ ϑέλον- 


vovmevov V. 

ὅτ εἶπεν ὅτι “ov un μείνῃ λίϑος 
ἐπὶ λίϑον εἰς τὸν ναὸν ὑμῶν "Ξε 
add. PAn. 


68 Griz om. 


PAn. 


4 Luke xxi. 17. 
& Matt. xxiv. 2. 


64 


9 ‘ ᾽ ’, 
σεις" πατέρα καὶ μητέρα" καὶ αδελῴφους" ov dvvacai™ 


μοι ἀκολουθῆσαι." 5 εἶπεν ἡμῖν μεταλαμβάνειν τοῦ 
σώματος" καὶ αἵματος" αὐτοῦ." εἶπεν ἡμῖν" περὶ 
ἐλεημοσύνης κρυπτῶς αὐτὴν ποιεῖν." εἶπεν ἡμῖν βαπτί- 

5 ξεσϑαι εἰς ὄνομα πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος. 
εἶπεν ἡμῖν ὅτι * μεϑ᾽ ὑμιῶν εἰμὶ πᾶσας τὰς ἡμέρας ἕως 
τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος." π΄ τίς οὖν ἔστιν ὁ δυνά- 
μενος ἐλέγξαι" ὅτι ταῦτα ey εὐσατοῦ ἕν τούτοις ὁ Χρισ- 
τὸς ἡμῶν : >“ οὐδείς. apa οὐκ ἔπεσεν ὁ ναὸς" ᾿ καὶ ἑκαύ- 

10 Sy" ὑπὸ Ων! Ῥωμαίων ; Ὁ ἄρα οὐκ ἐκηρύχϑη τὸ εὐαγ- 
γέλιον αὐτοῦ" ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ: ἄρα ου “μισούμεϑα ot 
χριστιαν οἱ δ διὰ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ὑπὸ πάντων; " apa 
ov ϑεωρεῖτε πολλοὺς xa’ ἡμέραν βαπτιξομένους" εἰς 
τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύ- 

15 ματος: * apa οὐ βλέπομεν καὶ νοοῦμεν ὅτι eS’ ἡμῶν 
ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος, μὴ συγ- 
χωρῶν καταργηϑῆναι τὴν πίστιν ἡμῶν; ἀρὰ ov ϑεωροῦ- 
μὲν μυρίους ἐξ ἡμῶν κρυπτῶς ποιοῦντας τὴν ἐλεημοσύνην 
αὐτῶν κατὰ τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ ; °° ris οὖν βλέπων 

20 τὰ τοιαῦτα καὶ τοσαῦτα αὐτοῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ῥήματα καὶ 


° ὁ μὴ ἀφίων PAn, δ αὐτοῦ om. P. 

τ καὶ μητέρα οἵα. Αη. ὁ ὑπὸ πάντων add. PAn. 

τι καὶ ἀδελφὰς add. An. 7 ἦρα οὐ ϑεωροῦμεν xa ἡμέραν 
™ Svvarat PAn, μυρίους ἀφέντας πατέρας καὶ μη- 
τ ἀκολουϑῆσαί μοι PAn, τέρας, HAL ἀποτασσομένους τῶ 
* ro σῶμα P, * rd αἷμα Ῥ, κόσμω καὶ ἀκολουθοῦντας τῷ 


> " . ~ " ~ " ~ ἮΝ - 
ὁ εἶπεν MES ἡμῶν εἰναι πᾶσας Χριστῶ; apa οὐ ϑεωρεῖτε xa 
τὰς ἡμέρας EWS τῆς συντελείαξ τοῦ ἡμέραν ποιοῦντας τους χριόστια- 


αἰῶνος add. Ῥ, VOUS καϑῶὼς προεῖπεν ἡμῖν ὁ Χριό- 
7 ἡμῖν om, Ρ. τὸς; add. P. apa οὐ ϑεωροῦμεν 
δ εἶπεν ἡμὶν ὅτι κιτιλις ςς, αἰῶ- μυρίους ἀφιόντας πατέρας καὶ μη- 

vos” οἵη. P. τέρας, καὶ axodovSovvras τῷ 
Ὁ αὐτὸν add, PAn, Χριστῶ ; add, An, 


“ravra ἐψεύσατο V, ἐψεύδατο “xa ἡμέραν βαπτιζομένους 
ταῦτα An, épevoaro ἐν τούὐύ- πολλους P. ᾿ 


τοις P. “ἡμῶν om. Ῥ, dpa οὐ ϑεωρεῖτε πολλοὺς κιτ.λ. 
" ὑμῶν add, PAn. ἐνὸν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ; om. 
3. ἐκαῃ PAn, An. 
"“ ὑπὸ τῶν Ῥωμαίων P, om, An., “apa ov ϑεωροῦμεν μυρίους 
ὑπὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων V. M.T.A....... Xpuorov ; om, An, 
5 of. Luke xiv. 26. ' of. Mark xiv. 22, etc. * of. Matt. vi. 1 ff. 


‘of. Matt. xxviii. 19. m 70. vers, 20, 


65 


πράγματα, ἅπερ πρὸ επαποσίων ἐτων" ᾿ προεῖπεν," σή- 
μερον "ἡ καὶ nas’ ἡμέραν "" γινόμενα nar λάμποντα," 
δύναται ἀπιστῆσαι 7) Hare aNIO OT Mat": μὴ 
γένοιτο. καὶ yap ἅπαντα τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ ot προφῆτας 
ὑμῶν " προεπήρυξαν, ἀλλ᾽ ὑμεῖς οὐκ ἐμβλέπετε."" 

lee Ἐρώτησαν ot Ιουδαῖοι "" εἰ οὖν ρα, Ol προφῆται 
ἡμῶν τὰ περὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ace προεῖπον, > Sia τί οὐκ 
εἴπον προφανῶς ὅτι γινώσπετε" Ἰουδαῖοι ὅτι μέλλει ἐλ- 
Seiv ὁ Χριστὸς καὶ παῦσαι τὸν νόμον καὶ tas ϑυσίας 


εἰς αὐτόν ; 


τοῦ νόμου;" 

ὃ χριστιανὸς εἶπεν" εἰ εἶπον οὕτως γυμνῶς τὸ 

μ᾿ ay ’ , ? \ \ 5 \ 
πρᾶγμα, ευϑέως ἑλιϑαξφετε ΠΡΟΣ λοῖπον δὲ καὶ τας 
βίβλους αὐτῶν ὅλας ee καὶ ἡμεῖς εἷς τοῦτο ἔἐβλαπ- 
TOMES aL ἄρτι yap ἀπὸ" τῶν προφητῶν ὑμῶν" παταῖισ- 
χύνομεν ὑμᾶς," πάντα τὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐξ αὐτῶν παρι- 
στῶντες, καὶ ὑμᾶς ἐλέγχοντες." 

Ὁ γὰρ Δαβὶὲδ λέγει" “ ἔμλινεν οὐρανοὺς καὶ πατ- 
ἔβη") 5" ἰδοὺ ἡ κατάβασις. 2 Ἡσαΐας λέγει “ἰδοὺ ἡ παρ- 
ϑένος EV γαστρὶ ἔξει, καὶ τέξεται υἱὸν, καὶ καλέσουσι 
τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ 227 δον ἢ γέννησις. aL ὥρυ- 
Sav χεῖρας μου nat πόδας μου" Hae, Σ eS conav εἷς TO 
βρῶμα pov χολὴν, καὶ eis τὴν δίψαν μου ἐπότισαν μὲ 
ὄξον," 4" καὶ διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱματιά μου ἑαυτοῖς, nat 
ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμόν μου ἔβαλον κλῆρον "5" ἰδοὺ" ἡ σταύ- 
Paes. 

81: πρὸ πολλῶν ἕτων P, πρὸ χρό- 
γῶν ὀνταπκοσίων ἢ HAL ἐπέκεινα 
An. 53 προεῖπεν om. P. 


> εἶπεν om. P. 5 gx PAn. 
7 ὑμῶν om. P. 


"ὑμᾶς καταιόχύνομεν PAn. 


10 


15 


20 


5 μέχρι τὴς Gnueporv Ρ. 

“ καὶ nal ἡμέραν om. P. 

"5. ὑπὲρ ἥλιον add. P. 

% ἀπιστῆσαι ἢ δκανδαλισϑῆναι 
VAn., δκανδαλιόσϑῆναι ἢ ἀπιό- 
τῆσαι P. ἐῶν om. P,~ 

“ov βλέπετε P. καὶ yap ἅπαντα 
oun ἐμβλέπετε om, An. 

'Epw@rnua Ἰουδαίου P, TOY 
ATTOT ABI TEPA EPHTASIS 
An. 3 etxor P. 

δέτε P, tva eidnre An. 

* τοῦ νόμου om. P. 


2 Psa. xvii. 10. 
4 Psa, Ixviii. 22. 


> 188. 


ὃ πάντα, ta tov Xpirov κ.τ A. 
ἐλέγχοντες V, ὅλα ra τοῦ 

Χριστοῦ ἐξ αὐτῶν ὑμᾶς ἐλέγχον- 
τες καὶ παριστῶντες An., ἐλέγχον- 
τες UNAS ἐξ αὐτῶν καὶ παριότῶν- 
res τὴν ἀλήϑειαν Ῥ. 

6 4 αβὶδ μὲν yap λέγει An. 

27600 ἡ παταβασις Om, AN. 

* nai “ἔδωκαν εἰς TO βρῶμα μου 
re ce, a . An. 

*2énpiSuno6av πάντα τὰ ὀστᾶ 


»» ” 
<2 ΒΟ = OM 


μου add, An. 
5. δου καὶ An. 
vii. 14. ¢ Psa. xxi. 17. 


e¢ Psa, xxi. 19. 


10 


15 


30 


35 


66 


apa ἐψεύσαντο of εὐαγγελισταὶ ἡμῶν εἰπόντες ὅτι 
ἔπαϑε ταῦτα ὁ Χριστὸς; ἐὼν ἐρεύσαντο καὶ Aapid 
ἐψεύσατο ὁ ταῦτα εἱπῶν. ἀλλὰ μη γένοιτο. ϑέλεις 
ἀκοῦσαι καὶ τὴν ἀνάστασιν αὐτοῦ ; Ὡσηὶ ὁ προφήτης 
λέγει ““δητήσωμεν τὸν κύριον, καὶ ὑγιάσει ἡμᾶς μετὰ 
δύο ἡμέρας - καὶ ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστησόμεϑα."" 


[12.” Aéyet yap ὁ Δαβὶδ ““ ἔκλινεν οὐρανους καὶ κατέ- 
βη"")" καὶ πάλιν ““ καταβήσεται ὡς ὑετὸς ἐπὶ πόκον "Ὁ 
ἰδοὺ ἡ κατάβασις. ὁμοίως καὶ Ἡσαΐας λέγει «ς ἰδουὺ ἡ 
παρϑένος ἕν γαστρὶ ἔξει, καὶ τέξει υἱόν, καὶ παλέσουσι 
TO ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ᾿Ἐμμανουὴλ"»" * idov ἡ γέννησις. καὶ 
πάλιν ἀλλαχοῦ ὁ αὐτὸς “προφήτης λέγει ps οὐκ ἄγγελος, 
οὐ πρέσβυς, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος n&er καὶ σώσει ἡμᾶς" “= 
ὅτι δὲ Seos ἐστι, λέγει “ἐ καὶ καλεῖται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ 
μεγάλης βουλῆς ἄγγελος, Seos ἰσχυρὸς, ἐξουσιαστὴς, 
ἄρχων εἰρήνη, πατὴρ τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος." " εἶτα 
καὶ τὸν τόπον τῆς γεννήσεως δηλῶν λέγει ““ γῆ Ζαβου- 
λῶν καὶ γῆ Νεφϑαλὴμ, ὅδον Salacons πέραν τοῦ 
Ἰορδάνου, Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν. ὁ λαὸς ὁ καϑήμενος 
ἐν σκότει εἶδεν φῶς μέγα," τουτέστιν ὁ λαὸς τῶν 
&Sv@v τὸν Χριστὸν ἐκεῖ γεννηθέντα ἐδόξασαν καὶ 
προσεκύνησαν. καὶ Μιχαίας δὲ ὁ προφήτης οὕτως λέγει 
<< καὶ σὺ Βηϑλεὲμ, γῆ Ἰούδα, οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη et EV 
τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν Ἰούδα: & σοῦ γὰρ ἐξελεύσεται ἡγου- 
pevos.”® καὶ Δαβὶδ δὲ δεικνὺς ὅτι διὰ τὰ ἔϑνη ὁ ϑεὸς 
σαρκοῦσϑαι ἔμελλεν, τρανῶς καὶ ἀνυποστόλως εἶπεν 
“< ἐβασίλευσεν 6 ϑεὸς ἐπὶ τὰ ἐϑνη 5 καὶ πάλιν ὡς ἐκ 
προσώπου τοῦ πατρὸς πρὸς τὸν υἱὸν φησὶν “αἴτησαι 
παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ, καὶ δώσω σοι ἔϑνηῃ τὴν κληρονομίαν σοῦ") 
καὶ πάλιν “πάντα τὰ ἔϑνη πκροτήσατε χεῖρας." " ‘ort 
παιδίον ἐγεννήθη ἡμῖν, υἱὸς καὶ ἐδόϑη ἡμῖν 1} καὶ 
“πάντα τὰ ἔϑνη boa ἐποίησας ἠξουσιν καὶ προσκυνή- 
σουσιν ἐνώπιόν oov κύριε." ὅτι δὲ ἐν Σιὼν ἔμελλεν 
φανεροῦσϑθαι ὁ Χριστὸς, καὶ ὅτι ὕψιστος ἐστιν, ἐν τῷ 
πε ψαλμῷ οὕτως Δαβὶδ προεφήτευσεν, ““ μήτηρ Σιὼν 


’ Usque ad caput 18, pag. 73 P; totum om, V. 


‘ Hos, vi. 1-2, * Psa. xvii. 10. > Pea. Ixxi. 6. © Isa, vii. 14, 
4 Taa. Ixili. 9. * Isa. ix. 6. Isa. ix. 1-2. ® Mic. v. 2. 
» Psa. xvi. 9. ‘fi, 8. * xIvi. 1. ' Isa, ix. 6. 


τ Psa. lxxxv. 9. 


67 


ἐρεῖ ἄνθρωπος, καὶ ἄνθρωπος ἐγεννήθη EV αὐτῇ; καὶ 
αὐτὸς ἐθεμελίωσεν αὐτὴν ὁ ὕψιστος" "αὶ ὥστε οὖν 
ὑφψιστὸς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς καὶ υἱὸς τοῦ ϑεοῦ. ὅτι δὲ 
τεχϑεὶς ὁ Χριστὸς ἔμελλεν μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας μητρὸς τῆς 
TV EV MAT LIS γεφέλης ἔρχεσϑαι εἰς ᾿Ἄιγυπτον, Ἡσαΐου 
τοῦ προφήτου ἀκούσωμεν λέγοντος, “<idov uvpios κάϑη- 
ται Ent νεφέλης κούφη, καὶ ἥξει εἰς ᾿ἄιϊιγυπτον καὶ σεισ- 
ϑήσονται τὰ χειροποίητα Atybrrov.”* ὅτι δὲ βαπτιξο- 
μένου τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἔμελλεν ὁ πατὴρ ἄνωϑθεν αὐτῷ 
μαρτυρεῖν, ἐν τῷ un ψαλμῷ οὕτως γέγραπται, ““ φωνὴ 
κυρίου ἐπὶ τῶν ὑδάτων, ὁ ϑεὸς τῆς δέξης ἐβρόντησε, 
κύριος ἐπὶ ὑδατὼν ZOAN@Y.”” εἶτα καὶ περὶ τῶν Sav- 
μάτων αὐτοῦ καὶ ἰάσεων ὧν ἐποίησεν Ἡσαΐας ὁ προ- 
φήτης λέγει ““ αὐτὸς Tas ἀσϑενίας ἡμῶν ἀνέλαβεν καὶ 
TAS νόσους ἐβάστασεν." . ὅτι δὲ εἰρηνεῦσαι τὸν KOG- 


3 ? 7 = ? 3 
μον ἤλϑεν, απουσωμεν τοῦ Aapis λέγοντος, ““ανατελεῖ 


EV ταῖς ἡμέραις αὐτοῦ δικαιοσύνη, καὶ πλῆϑος εἰρήνης 
ἕως οὗ ἀνταναιρεϑὴ 1) σελήνη. nal HAT AKU PIEVO El ἀπὸ 
Salacons ἕως ϑαλάσσης, nat ἀπὸ ποταμῶν ἕως περά- 
τῶν τῆς οἰκουμένης." " κἂν εἴπῃς, @ Ἰουδαῖε, ὅτι περὶ 
Σολομῶντος λέγει ψεύδῃ σε, προϊων yap λέγει x πρὸ 
τοῦ ἡλίου διαμενεῖ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, καὶ πάντα τὰ 
ἐϑνη μαπαριοῦσιν αὐτὸν," καὶ “προσκυνήσουσιν αὐ- 
τὸν πάντες of βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς." ταῦτα δὲ οὐ δυνα- 
τὸν εἰς “Σολομῶντα λέγεσθαι, οὐδὲ yap ἦν πρὸ τοῦ 
ἡλίου, ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε διήρπεσεν ἕως οὗ ἀνταναιρεϑῇ ἡ σε- 
λήνη. ὅτι δὲ καὶ διὰ βαπτίσματος ἔμελλεν Χριστὸς ὃ 
Seos ἡμῶν πκαταργεῖν τὸν διάβολον καὶ τοὺς σὺν αὐτῷ 
δαίμονας, ὁ Δαβὶδ λέγει μαρτυρῶν πρὸς αὐτὸν οὕτως, 
“σὺ συνέτριψας Tas κεφαλὲς τῶν δρακόντων ἐπὶ τοῦ 
ὕδατος: σὺ συνέϑλασας τὴν κεφαλὴν τοῦ δράποντος." " 
ὅτι δὲ ποιητής ἔστιν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς ὁ ἐν Saraoon 
περιπατήσας, τοῦ Ἰὼβ ἀκούσωμεν λέγοντος “Ὁ τανύσας 
τὸν οὐρανὸν μόνος, καὶ περιπατῶν ἐπὶ ϑαλάσσης ἧς 
ἐπὶ ἐδάφους." περὶ δὲ τοῦ πώλου καὶ τῆς ὄνου ἐφ᾽ ὧν ὁ 
Χριστὸς ἐκάϑισεν, ἀκούσωμεν Ζαχαρίου τοῦ προφήτου 
λέγοντος ““χαῖρε σφόδρα, ϑύγατερ Σιῶν, κήρυσσε, 


2 Psa, Ixxxvi. 5. 5 Tas ΣΤ I: P Psa. xxviii. 3. 
4 Isa. liii. 4. : r Psa, Ixxi. 7-8. s Jb. vers. 17. 
t Jb. vers. 11. ἃ Psa, Ixxiii. 13-14. v Job ix. 8. 


10 


15 


20 


25 


30 


dd 


10 


15 


20 


30 


68 


ϑύγατερ Ἱερουσαλὴμ" ἰδοὺ 6 βασιλεύς σου ἔρχεταί σοι 
πρᾳὺς καὶ σώξων, ἐπιβεβηκῶς ἐπὶ πῶλον ὄνου υἱὸν 
ὑποδυγίου. 7m 
τίτοινυν τῶν προφητικῶν τούτων φωνῶν τηλαυγέσ- 
τερον: ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως καίπερ οὕτως τρανῶς περὶ τοῦ Χρισ- 
τοῦ τῶν προφητῶν προφητευσάντων, ἀπετύφλωσεν ὁ 
Gatavas τὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ὄμματα, καὶ ἐπώρωσεν TAS 
τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτῶν anoas, ἵνα τὰς τοιαύτας ἀληϑεῖς μαρ- 
τυρίας παραγράφψονται. καὶ τοῦτο δῆλον καὶ ἀναμφί- 
βολον ἐκ τῶν τοῦ Ἡσαΐου ῥημάτων λέγοντος * κύριε, 
τίς ἐπίστευσε τῇ axon) ἡμῶν 5 καὶ ὁ βραχίων κυρίου τίνι 
ἀπεκαλύφϑη 5’ :α διὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἠδύναντο πιστεύειν ὅτι 
πάλιν εἶπεν Ἡσαΐας ὧν τετύφλωπεν αὐτῶν τοὺς opSan- 
μοὺς καὶ πεπώρωπεν αὐτῶν τὴν καρδίαν, iva μὴ ἰδωσι 
τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς καὶ νοήσωσιν τῇ καρδίᾳ καὶ ἐπιστρα- 
ΘΕΟῚ καὶ ἰάσομαι αὐτούς." βλέπεις πῶς πανταχοῦ 
αὐτοὶ αἴτιοι τῆς ἀπιστίας καὶ ἀπωλείας αὐτῶν καϑεσ- 
τήπασιν. τοῦτο yap NYE ATO εἰπῶν ““ κύριε, τίς ἐπίσ- 
τευσε τῇ ἀποῇ ἡμῶν ;"" περὶ Ἰουδαίων τοῦτο ELPNKE, 
ov περὶ τῶν ἐξ ἔϑνων. ὅτι δὲ ἀληϑές ἐστι τὸ εἰρημένον 
μαρτυρεῖ Δαβὶδ λέγων ““πάντα ta ἔϑνη ὅσα εποίησας 
ἥξουσι καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν ἐνώπιον Gov, κύριε," " καὶ 
τὰ ἑξῆς. ἀκούσωμεν δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν παίδων τῶν ἀπαν- 
TNTAVT COV τῷ κυρίῳ καί βοησάντων τὸ ὡσαννα καὶ 
κύριον, αὐτὸν ἀποκαλεσάντων, πῶς καὶ τοῦτο Ζαβὶδ 
προεφήτευσε, λέγων ἐν τῷ φαλμῷ; “ κύριε, ὁ κύριος 
ἡμῶν, ὡς ϑαυμαστὸν τὸ ὄνομά σου ἐν πάσῃ τῇ yo ὅτι 
ἐπήρϑη γἷ μεγαλοπρέπεια σου" ὑπεράνω τῶν οὐρανῶν. 
ἐκ στόματος νηπίων καὶ Ξϑηλαδόντων πατηρτίσω at- 
">> ri πρὸς τοῦτο ἔχεις ἀντειπεῖν, ὦ Ἰουδαῖε : 
περὶ δὲ τῆς τοῦ Ἰούδα πρυϑδόυδαν ἐν τῷ μ' ψαλμῷ 
λέγει “66 ἐσθίων ἄρτους μου ἐμεγάλυνεν Em’ ἐμὲ πτερ- 
γισμόν." 5 τὴν δὲ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων καὶ Ἡρώδου καὶ Πιλά- 
του ἐπιβουλὴν κατὰ Χριστοῦ ὁ β' ψαλμὸς λέγει “iva τί 
ἐφρύαξαν ἔϑνη, καὶ λαοὶ ἐμελέτησαν κενά: παρέστησαν 
oe βασιλεῖς τὴς γῆς," τουτέστιν Πιλᾶτος καὶ Ἡρώδης, 
“ἐ καὶ οἱ ἄρχοντες συνήχθησαν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ, Avvas καὶ 
Καΐαφας καὶ of λοιποὶ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ γραμματεῖς, ““ κατὰ 
τοῦ κυρίου καὶ κατὰ τοῦ χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ." δ᾽ πάντως 


ψον. 


* Zech, ix. 9. χα Isa, lili. 1. Υ Isa. vi. 10. * Isa, lili. 1. 
* Psa. IXxxv. 9. ὃν viii, 2-3. ee x). 10. a4 Psa, ii, 1-2. 


69 


ἤκουσες ὅτι “κατὰ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ κατὰ τοῦ χριστοῦ 
αὐτοῦ, " ὁ γὰρ πολεμῶν τὸν υἱὸν ὑβρίξει τὸν πατέρα. 
ἔχεις ἀναισχυντεῖν κἂν ἐπὶ τοῦτο, ὦ Ἰουδαῖε; : 

περὶ δὲ TOV δεσμῶν ὧν ἐδωσαν TOY ἈΠ ἀν; ταλα- 
νίδων τοὺς Ἰουδαίους, Ἡσαΐας ὁ προφήτης λέγει “ οὐαὶ 
τῇ ψυχῇ αὐτῶν διότι βεβουλεύονται βουλὴν πονηρὰν 
naS’ ἑαυτῶν, λέγοντες, δήσωμεν τὸν δίκαιον ὅτι δύσ- 
pg Leg 2 ἡμῖν τε © ἐρώτησον λοιπὸν τὸν Ἰουδαῖον 
καὶ εἰπὲ αὐτῷ, τίς ἀνθρώπων͵ ἕπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀναμάρτητος; 
εὔδηλον ὅτι οὐδείς. λέγει γὰρ προφαν ὥς ἡ γραφὴ ὅτι 
ie οὐδεὶς καθαρὸς ἀπὸ ῥύπου, οὐδ᾽ ἂν μία ἡμέρα 1) δὼ) 
αὐτοῦ επὶ ad γῆ. »π μαὶ παλιν φησὶν ὁ προφήτης πρὸς 
τὸν ϑεὸν Ὁ 4 μὴ εἰσέλθῃς εὶς κρίσιν μετὰ τοῦ δούλου 
σου, ὅτι οὐ δικαιωθήσεται ἐνώπιόν σου πᾶς δῶν "5 se 
ὥστε φανερῶς διδασπόμεϑα ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἀναμάρτητος él 
μὴ εἷς ὁ Seos. ἀκούσωμεν οὖν τί λοιπὸν ὁ προφήτης 
Ἡσαΐας διαλέγεται ἡμῖν περὶ τοῦ πάϑους τοῦ ἀναμαρ- 
τήτου pecs TOU Θεοῦ, “@s πρόβατον ἐπὶ σφαγὴν 
ἤχϑη; HAL ὡς ἀμνὸς ἐναντίον τοῦ κξίραντος αὐτὸν 
ἄφωνος, οὗτος οὐ» avoiyet TO στόμα αὐτοῦ ἌΡ ΛΩΝ 
δὲ ὅτι ἐσιῶπα ὁ Χριστὸς Πιλάτῳ παριστάμενος ἐπὶ τὸ 
πάϑος αὐτοῦ" “ev TH ταπεινώσει αὐτοῦ ἡ πρίσις αὐ- 
τοῦ ἤρϑη - τὴν δὲ γενεὰν αὐτοῦ τίς διηγήσεται, on του- 
τέστιν τὴν προαιώνιον γέννησιν" κατὰ Capra yap 
γενεαλογεῖται Χριστὸς 6 ϑεός. εἶτα πάλιν “ano τῶν 
ἀνομιῶν τοῦ λαοῦ μου ἥπει εἰς Savatov:”*© δῆλον δὲ 
Le ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν τοῦ κόσμου Χριστὸς ἀπέϑανεν" 

«καὶ δώσω τοὺς πονηροὺς ἀντὶ τῆς ταφῆς αὐτοῦ," con 
OTL τοὺς Ἰουδαίους παραδοὺς τοῖς Ρωμαίοις, ““ καὶ τοὺς 
πλουσίους αντὶ ἘΠΕ ϑανάτου αὐτοῦ -"} διὰ τί; ὦ προ- 
φῆτα, ἐιπὲ ἡμῖν - “ort ἁμαρτίαν" φησὶν ΜΗ οὐκ ἑποίησεν, 
οὐδὲ δόλος τὸ ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ. ae ον: ἄνθρω- 
πος Gas πρόβατον ἐπὶ σφαγὴν ἤχϑη; ἁμαρτίαν “μὴ ποι- 
NOMS ; : ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ ἔχουσι δεῖξαι ἀνϑρωπον ἀναμάρτητον, 
εἰ μὴ μόνον τὸν ϑεὸν τὸν γενόμενον ἄνϑρωπον. ἀπού- 
σῶμεν δὲ καὶ περὶ TOV ψευδομαρτύρων τῶν κατὰ τοῦ 
Χριστοῦ ψευδομαρτυρισάντων ἕν pak ue AS “ avao- 
TAVTES μοι μάρτυρες ἄδικοι ἃ οὐ ἐγίνωσπον ἡρώτων 
με: ἀνταπεδίδοσάν μοι πονηρὰ ἀντὶ ayaS@v.”™ δῆλον 


ee Isa. iii, 9-10. € Job ‘xiv. 4-5. εε Psa. cxlii. 2. bh Τρ, liii. 7. 


10 


nh 


30 


ii vers, 8, kk δια. " vers, 9, mm Psa, xxxiv. 11-12. 


10 


15 


20 


30 


70 


ὅτι ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς ἐν τῷ λαῷ παντὶ πεποίηκεν πρῶτον 
μὲν τὴν ἔξοδον αὐτῶν τὴν. ἐξ ᾿Διγύπτου καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ 
μυρία ἀγαϑὰ ἃ εἰς αὐτοὺς εἰργάσατο, ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ 
TOUS νοσοῦντας αὐτῶν ἰασάμενος. περὶ δὲ τῶν μαστι- 
γωσαντῶν καὶ ῥαπισάντων τὸν Χριστὸν Ἡσαΐας ὁ προ- 
φήτης ὡς ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ χριστοῦ οὕτως ἔφη, (τὸν 
νῶτόν μου ded cona εἰς μάστιγας, Tas δὲ σιαγόνας μου εἰς 
ῥαπίσματα, τὸ δὲ πρόσωπόν μου οὐκ ἀπέστρεψα ἀπὸ 
αἰσχύνης ἐμπτυσμάτων. οὖν ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ὁ προφήτης 
“αβὶδ ἐπ προσώπου τοῦ χριστοῦ ἐν AE bak pop λέγει ὅτι 
-ν ἐγὼ εἰς μάστιγας ἕτοιμος, καὶ ἢ ἀλγηδών μου ἐνώπιόν 
μου ἔστιν διὰ παντός." ΡΟ “περὶ δὲ τῆς πράσεως τοῦ Xpio- 
TOU λέγει Ἱερεμίας ὁ προφήτης ““παὶ ἔλαβον τὰ τριάκοντα 
ἀργύρια τὴν τιμὴν τοῦ τετιμημένου ὃν ἐτιμήσαντο ἀπὸ 
υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ, καὶ ἐδωπα αὐτὰ εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν τοῦ περα- 
μέως, naSa συνέταξέν μοι κύριος. > apa τοῦτο παρα- 
γράψασθαι δύνασϑε, ὦ Ἰουδαῖοι, ὅπερ πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν 
παντὸς τοῦ κόσμου πρόπειται EX τότε καὶ μέχρι τοῦ VUV ; 
λέγω δὴ) ὁ ἀγρὸς τοῦ HEPA MEGS εἰς ταφὴν τοῖς ξένοις. 
ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ Ζαχαρίας ὁ προφήτης περὶ τῶν λ΄ ἀρ- 
γυρίων ὡς ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ χριστοῦ “καὶ ἔτησαν 
τὸν μισϑόν μου τριάκοντα ἀργυρίους." 4“ ὅτε δὲ τὴν 
ἀρχὴν τῆς σωτηρίας ἡμῶν 7) γοῦν τὸν τίμιον σταυρὸν 
ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις αὐτοῦ ὥμοις ἐβάστασεν ὁ Χριστὸς vip Go- 
Seis ἐν av τῷ, Ἡσαΐας προεφήτευσε, λέγων “ov ἡ ἀρχὴ 
ἐπὶ τοῦ ὥμου αὐτοῦ," πὶ τουτέστιν ὁ δωοποιὸς σταυρός. 
περὶ δὲ τοῦ ἐξ πεν νον στεφάνου γέγραπται ἐν 
τοῖς ἄσμασι τῶν ἀσμάτων οὕτως, “«“ϑυγατέρες Tepov- 
σαλὴμ, ἐδέλθατε καὶ ἴδετε τὸν στέφανον ὃν ἐστεφά- 
γῶσεν αὐτὸν 1) μήτηρ αὐτοῦ, gis τουτέστιν ἡ συναγωγὴ 
τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων, μήτηρ yap Χριστοῦ αὕτη κατὰ σάρκα 
γοεῖται, “ev ἡμέρᾳ γυμφεύσεως αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ 
εὐφροσύνης καρδίας αὐτοῦ" 5 πρόδηλον δὲ ὅτι ) ἡμέρα 
τοῦ πάξους τοῦ χριστοῦ ἡμέρα nV εὐφροσύνης αὐτοῦ 
διὰ τὴν σωτηρίαν ἡμῶν." ὥσπερ, yap anavSai τινες 
οὕτως ὑπῆρχον αἱ ἁμαρτίαι τοῦ κόσμου ἅστινας ἐλθὼν 
ὁ χριστὸς “6 ἄμνος τοῦ ϑεοῦ ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν 
τοῦ κόσμου" " ἐξήλειψεν. καὶ καθάπερ διὰ τοῦ παρ- 
ποῦ τοῦ ξύλου ἡ ἁμαρτία τὴν εἴσοδον ἔσχεν, οὕτως 


on ἴδῃ, ], 6. o° Psa, xxxvii. 18. pe Zech. xi. 12-13. a Jb. vers. 12. 
τ 155, ix. 6. ** Cant. iii. 12. John i, 29. 


71 


διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ τοῦ HOG [Mov ἢ σωτηρία καὶ διὰ τοῦτο 
ἕν κήπῳ τὸ πάϑος τοῦ “Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο. ἐπειδὴ ἐν παρα- 
δείσῳ παρέβη ὁ Ada διὸ καὶ τῷ λῃστῇ παράδεισος 
ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ ἀνοίγεται. διὰ τοῦτο δὲ καὶ ὥρᾳ 
ἕκτῃ ὁ Χριστὸς σταυροῦται ἐπειδὴ τὸ δειλινὸν ὁ Adam 
ἕξορίσϑη. χολῆς δὲ γεύεται ἵνα τὴν γλυκύτητα ΤῊΣ 
πικρᾶς ἡδονῆς τοῦ ᾿δὼμ ἰάσηται. ῥαπίξεται ἵνα ἐμοὶ 
τὴν ἐλευθερίαν χαρίσηται. ἐμπτύτεται ἵνα τὸ ἐμφυύυ- 
σημα τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἡμῖν δωρήσηται. φραγελ- 
λοῦται ἵνα τὸ ἐπὶ τοῦ νώτου ἡμῶν φορτίον τῶν ἁμαρ- 


τιῶν σπορπίσῃ." γυμνοῦται ἐν ξύλῳ ἵνα τὴν ἐμὴν 
αἰσχύνην σπεπάσῃ. 3 “ανατοῦται iva ἐμὲ δωοποιήσῃ." 
MAT AMPLVET AL iva ἐμὲ Pie κατάρας ἀπολύσῃ. καλάμῃ 


τὴν πεφαλὴν τύπτεται iva τὴν τοῦ ὄφεως κεφαλὴν 
συντρίψῃη." λόγχῃ τὴν πλευρὰν νύττεται ἵνα τὴν EX 
τ τος τοῦ ᾿Αδὰμ RENO Ὁ) Εἰσίαν. OES ϑεραπεύσῃ, 
καὶ τὴν ain Nile ῥομφαίαν τὴν nal? ἡμῶν στρεφο- 
μένην παύσῃ," καὶ τὴν ὁδὸν ἡμῖν τοῦ παραδείσου ἀν- 
οἔξῃ. ὅτι δὲ ἐν μέσῳ THS ys emedder ὁ χριστὸς OTAV- 
ροῦσϑαι ἕν τῷ oy pak p@ λέγει οὕτως ὁ Aafid, “0 δὲ 
ϑεὸς βασιλεὺς ἡμῶν πρὸ ALY OS εἰργάσατο σωτηρίαν 
ἐν μέσῳ τῆς γῆς." ἃ ὅτι δὲ μετὰ λῃστῶν ἔμελλεν ὁ χρισ- 
τὸς σταυροῦσϑαι Ἡσαΐας ὁ προφήτης φησὶ ““ καὶ μετὰ 
ἀνόμων ἐλογίσθη. ἦτο wept δὲ τῶν ἥλων HAL τοῦ διαμε- 
ἜΡΙΝ τῶν ἱματίων EV ΠΝ κα΄ οὕτως γέγραπται, 
““ὥρυξαν χεῖρας μου καὶ πόδας μου, ἐδηρίϑμησαν 
πάντα Ta ὀστᾶ wry A καὶ “- διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμά- 
Tla μου ἑαυτοῖς, nal ἐπὶ τὸν ἱμάτισμόν μου ἔβαλον 
λῆρον." * ὁμοίως δὲ nal Ζαχαρίας ὁ προφήτης περὶ 
τῶν ἥλων οὕτως ἔφη, “ καὶ ἐροῦσιν πρὸς αὐτὸν, TL 
αὐ πληγαὶ αὗται ai ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν χειρῶν σου; καὶ 
ἐρεῖ, ἃς ἐπλήγην ἐν τῷ οἴπῷ τῷ ἀγαπητῷ ΠΡ Εν au 
περὶ δὲ τοῦ σποτασμοῦ ὃ αὐτὸς, προφήτης Ζαχαρίας 
λέγει ἐς καὶ ἕσταε. EV ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ οὐ» ἔσται φῶς, 
καὶ op DY OS καὶ πάγος ἔσται μία ἡμέρα, καὶ ἡμέρα ENELVY) 


' δπορπίδσει cod. * συντρίψει cod. 

3 δκεπάσει COA, ® ϑεραπεύυδει cod. 

" ζωοποιήσει cod, “ παύσει cod, τ ἀνοίξει cod. 
ἘΠΡΒΑ; ixxili, 12: w Isa. liii. 12. ww Psa, xxi. 17-18. 


xx vers, 19. f yy Zech. xiii. 6. 


10 


30 


dd 


10 


20 


30 


35 


72 


γνωστὴ τῷ κυρίῳ, καὶ οὐχ ἡμέρα καὶ γνὺξ, καὶ πρὸς ἕσ- 
πέραν ἔσται φῶς aif ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ “μῶς ὁ προφήτης 
λέγει “yal ἔσται ἕν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, λέγει κύριος 
κύριος, καὶ δύσεται ὁ ἥλιος μεσημβρίας, καὶ συσπκοτά- 
σει EML γῆς EV ἡμέρᾳ τὸ φῶς." καὶ Ἰωὴλ ὁ προφήτης 
λέγει" ὁ ἥλιος nat ”) σελήνη συσποτάσουσιν, καὶ ot ἀστέ- 
pes δύσουσι τὸ φέγγος αὐτῶν, καὶ κύριος “ἈΠῈ φωνὴν 

αὐτοῦ." ὅτι δὲ ἔμελλον Tae nat χολὴν ποτίξειν τὸν 
χριστὸν, ψαλμοῦ ξη ἀκούσωμεν λέγοντος ““ἐδωπαν 
eis τὸ βρῶμα μου χολὴν, καὶ εἰς "τὴν δίψαν μου ἐπότι- 
Cav μὲ ὄξος" “9 idov καὶ ἢ σταύρωσις καὶ τὰ EV αὐτῇ 
παρωπολουϑήσαντα. διὸ ὁ αὐτὸς προφήτης τούτοις τὰ 
μέλλοντα προλέγει, “γενηθήτω ἡ τράπεδα αὐτῶν ἐνώ- 
πιον αὐτῶν εἰς παγίδα, καὶ εἰς αγταπόδοσιν, καὶ εἰς 
σκάνδαλον" σκοτισϑήτωσαν ot ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτῶν τοῦ μὴ 
βλέπειν, καὶ τὸν νῶτον αὐτῶν διὰ παντὸς σύνπκαμ- 
ov.” 44. γαἱ διὰ τοῦ προφήτου ᾿Αββαπουὺμ" ἀπειλεῖ ὁ 
Seos τοῖς οὕτω διαπειμένουσιν, καὶ μὴ πιστεύουσιν, 
λέγων οὕτως, ““ ἴδετε οἵ καταφρονηταὶ καὶ ἐπιβλέψατε, 
καὶ ϑαυμάσατε, ὅτι ἔργον ἐργάξομαι ἐγὼ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέ- 
ραις ὑμῶν, ὃ οὐ μὴ πιστεύσητε ἕάν τις ὑμῖν exdinyei- 
raw.” πάντα τοίνυν τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ἁρμόδει, εἷς καὶ 
Μωῦσῆς τούτοις ἐπεμβαίνει, λέγων nat ἔσται ἡ on) 
σου πρεμαμένη ἀπέναντι τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν σου, καὶ 
φοβηϑήσῃ ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς, καὶ οὐ πιστεύσεις τῇ ξωὴ 
gov.” περὶ δὲ τῆς ἐγριεντήσεως τὴῆξ λόγχης λέγει 
Ζαχαρίας ὁ προφήτης ““ καὶ ἐπιβλέψονται πρὸς με εἰς ὃν 
ἐξεκέντησαν." "6. περὶ δὲ τῆς ἁγίας αὐτοῦ πλευρᾶς τῆς 
ἐκβλυσάσης τὸ αἷμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ ὁ αὐτὸς προφήτης 
λέγει “ey τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ἐξελεύσεται ὕδωρ δῶν ἐξ 
Ἱερουσαλήμ.» ἀπούσομεν δὲ καὶ τοῦ προφήτου 
Ἡσαΐου περὶ τῆς ταφῆς τοῦ κυρίου λέγοντος, καὶ ὅπως 
διαγελᾷ τοὺς Ἰουδαίους, ‘* ἴδετε ὡς ὁ δίκαιος ἀπώλετο, 
καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐκδέχεται τῇ καρδίᾳ,᾽ es ” γοῦν τὴν αὐτοῦ av 
actaciv: καὶ πάλιν “απὸ προσώπου ἀδικίας ἧρται ὁ 


δίκαιος καὶ ἔσται ἐν εἰρη νὴ ”) Tan αὐτοῦ") eipnvnv 
*"AuBaxovu cod. 
™ Zech. xiv. 6-7. 586 Amos viii. 9. bo> Joel ili, 15. ece Pea. Ixviil. 22. 
‘44 vors, 23-24. eee Hab. i. δ. { Deut. xxviii. 66. eee Zech. xii. 10. 


bhb xiv, 8 itt Tea. Ivii. 1. &kk vers, 1-2, 


73 


δὲ λέγει ὅτε Πιλᾶτος μετ᾽ εἰρήνης παρέδωπεν τὸ σῶμα 
τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῷ Ἰωσήφ. ὁμοίως 
δὲ nal Aafid περὶ τῇ ταφῆς αὐτοῦ λέγει ἐν τῷ 16 
φαλμῷ, ὡς ἐκ προσώπου Χριστοῦ, “ ἐϑεντό μὲ ἐν Nan- 
κμῷ κατωτάτῳ EV σποτεινοῖς καὶ EV σπιᾷ Savatov:”™ 
καὶ πάλιν ““ καὶ ἐγενήθην ὡσεὶ ἄνθρωπος αἀβοήϑητος 
ἐν venpois ἐλεύθερος, ha or γοῦν ἀναμάρτητος. γέ- 
γραπται δὲ καὶ ἐν τῷ Ἰὼβ οὕτως, “ς ἀνοἰγωνταί σοι 
φόβῳ πύλαι ϑανάτου, πυλωροὶ δὲ adov ἰδόντες σὲ 
ἔπτηξαν, πη δῆλον ὅτι AL ἐναντίαι TOV δαιμόνων δυ- 
γάμεις. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἐν τῷ Ee φαλμῷ οὕτως γέγραπ- 
σα, Ὁ ἐξάγων πεπεδημένους ἐν ἀνδρίᾳ, ὁμοίως τοὺς 
παραπιπκραίνοντας τοὺς κατοικοῦντας EV τάφοις. ee 
ὅτι δὲ ὁ χριστὸς ἕν τῷ aon ἀπομένειν οὐκ ἔμελλεν ἀλλὰ 
τριήμερος ἀνίστασϑαι, ψαλμοῦ 1ξ᾽ ἀπούσομεν λέγον- 
τὸς ὅτι “οὐκ ἐγηαταλεύρεις τὴν ψυχήν aed εἰς ἄδην, 
οὐδὲ δώσεις τὸν ὅσιόν σου ἰδεῖν διαφϑοράν." ἘρΡ καὶ ὃ 
προφήτης δὲ Ὡσηὲ οὕτως EDN, MG TOPEVI@ MEY καὶ ἕπισ- 
τρέψωμεν πρὸς πύριον τὸν ϑεὸν ἡμῶν, ὅτι αὐτὸς πέπαι- 
HEV ἡμᾶς καὶ ἰάσεται ἡμᾶς μετὰ δίο ἡμέρας" καὶ ἕν τῇ 
τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστησόμεθα nat δησόμεθα 4 Ἰδοὺ 
περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεωϑβ. περὶ δὲ τῶν μυροφορων a 
ναιϊικῶν ‘Hoaias ὁ προφήτης, εἶπεν “Ἢ γυναῖπες ἐρχόμε- 
ναι ἀπὸ ϑέας δεῦτε: οὐ yap λαὸς ἔστιν ἔχων σύνε- 
δέν χερὶ δὲ THS ἀναλήψεως Χριστοῦ ἐν 12 ihe or 
γέγραπται “< καὶ ἐπέβη ἐπὶ χερουβὶμ, καὶ ἐπετάσϑη ἐπὶ 
πτερύγῶν ἀνέμων. 7988 γχαὶ παλιν ἐν Ue ψαλμῷ { ἀνέβη 
ὁ ϑεὸς ἐν ἀλαλαγμῷ, κύριος ἐν φωνῇ σαλπιγγος." * 
καὶ EV τῷ προφήτῃ Ζαχαρίᾳ γέγραπται “ἕν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ 
ἐκείνῃ στήσονται οὗ πόδες κυρίου εἰς τὸ ὄρος τῶν 
ἐλαιὼν τὸ κατέναντι Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐξ ἀνατολῶν ἡλί- 
po | 

13. Tis λοιπὸν ἐκ τῶν προφητῶν ταῦτα anovwv 
περὶ Χριστοῦ, οὐχ ὁμολογεῖ αὐτὸν ϑεὸν ἀληϑινόν; 


10 


1ὅ 


20 


25 


30 


1ris λοιπὸν ἐξ τῶν π.τ.λ. V, ris τῶν περὶ αὐτοῦ ῥηθπθέντων P, Aor- 
s ~ , , , 9 ~ Η͂ , - » , > “ὦ 
OUV ταῦτα πάντα ἀπούων ἐπ τῶν MOV τίς ταῦτα ἀκούων EX τῶν προ- 


ϑείων προφητῶν περὶ Χριστοῦ, καὶ φητῶν περὶ τοῦ χριότοῦ An, 


Il Psa, Ixxxvii. 7. mmm Psa, Ixxxvii. 5-6. non Job xxxviii. 17. ooo Pga. Ixvii. 7 
ΡΡΡ Psa. xv. 10. 444 Hos. vi 1-2. mr Tsa, xxvii. 11. sss Pga, xvii. 11. 


ttt Psa, xvi. 6. uuu ‘Zech, xiv. 4. 


74 


ἡμεῖς yap ovK ἄνθρωπον ψιλὸν αὐτὸν" λέγομεν, ἀλλὰ" 
Seov' ἐνανθϑρωπήσαντα, καὶ" εἰδωλα " καταργήσαντα, 
ϑυσίας Saimovinas’ παύσαντα, βωμοὺς" καταστρέ- 
ψαντα. ποῦ εἰσὶν αἱ ϑυσίαι Αἰγύπτου; ποῦ αἱ μαν- 
5 τεῖαι Μέμφεως ;" ποῦ εἰσὶ σήμερον οἱ τὸν Νεῖλον" σε- 
βόμενοι; ποῦ τῆς Ἀρτέμιδος ὁ ναός; ποῦ τοῦ ναοῦ Κυ- 
Ginov" at μαντεῖαι καὶ Svoiar;” ἀπώλοντο πάντα "ἢ 
τὰ τῶν δαιμόνων πράγματα τοῦ Χριστοῦ" φανέντος, 
σταυροῦ" παγέντος. Χριστὸς" πανταχοῦ προσπυνεῖ- 
10 raz καὶ δοξ ἄδεται, καὶ οὐκ αἰσχύνονται ot" Ἰουδαῖοι εἰ- 
δωλοϑύτας ἡμᾶς καὶ εἰδωλολάτρας " ὀνομάξοντες. ὅμως 
οὐδὲν ξένον" πᾶσα yap γυνὴ πόρνη τὸ ίδιον ὄνομα 
τῇ ἐλευθέρᾳ γυναιπὲ περιτίϑησιν," μραδουσα πόρνην 
Ἡσαΐου " καὶ Ἱεριμίου καὶ αὐτοῦ, τοῦ δεσπότου οὐκ 
15 ἐφείσασϑε, nal πῶς ἡμῶν éyete™ φείσασϑαι:; ἐγὼ" 
μὲν προσκυνῶν εἰκόνα λέγω δόξα σοι ὁ ϑεὸς τῶν 
ἁγίων, καὶ ov ae Si δόξα σοι ξύλον ἢ δωγραφία" gy 
δὲ mpoonvv@v™ τὴν εἰκόνα, λέγειν δόξα σοι Na- 
βουχοδονόσορ. ἐγὼ προσκυνῶν" τὸν σταυρὸν, οὐ 
20 λέγω δόξα σοι" ξύλον -" μὴ γένοιτο: adda λέγω δόξα 


"αὐτὸν ψιλὸν P. λωνος καὶ παντων τῶν δαι- 
" ἀλλὰ καὶ Ῥ, μόνων ; τοῦ γὰρ Χριστοῦ An, 
4“ ἡμεὶς γὰρ οὐκ κιτ.λος .... ϑεὸν "5 καὶ σταυροῦ PAN. 
m. An, 6 ϑεὸς An. 
" καὶ om, PAn. ” oi om. PAn. 
5 εἰδωλα re An. ΟΝ καὶ εἰδωλολάτρας Huds P. 
* δαιμονῶν An. ® περιτίϑῃ P. 
*ravoavra, βωμοὺς om, An. ” πόρνῃ P, memopvevuévy An, 


" ποῦ Σεβέννυτος ἡ τὸν Σίμωνα 3: πλὴν Ἡσαΐου Ῥ. 
, ~ © ΄ ‘ ᾿ - ν bad ~ 

δεβομένῃ; ποῦ Ὧνουφις ἡ τὸν ὄνον 2 ἡμῶν ἔχετε V, ἔχετε ἡμῶν P 

, ; Pts ἢ 7 x ’ 
προόσκυνούσα; διὰ yap τοῦτο Ta ἡμὶν Tos χριότιαν οἷς ἔχετε AN, 

~ αν ἢ ~ - ‘ ᾿ , 
τοιαῦτα ονόματα add. P, ποῦ Σε- 33 καὶ ἐγὼ Ῥ, καγ ὦ An. 
βήνυτος ἡ τὸν Σίμωνα δεβομένη; τὴν εἰκόνα Ῥ. 
mow Νούφις ἡ τὸν otvov κροόκυ- ™ ξύλου 7 ζωγραφίας An. 


vovoa add, An. * καὶ An, 
δ ἥλιον An. * προδεκύνησας An, 
" γαοῦ Κυζίκου VAn., KvOixnov ™ εἶπας An, 
ναοῦ Ῥ. *” σοι om, An, 
3 ai ϑυσίαι P. ® προσκυνῶ An. 
® dda P. “1 6o1 om. An. 
“Mai pavreiat mai x.7.A. ..... 5 ξύλου An. ἢ ζωγραφία συ δὲ 


τοῦ Χριστοῦ VP, αἱ μαντεῖαι ᾿Απὸλ- κιτ.λ. ον νος ὅοι ξύλον om, P. 


ri) 


σοι σταυρὲ παντοδύναμε ὁ τύπος “᾽ 
δὲ προσπυνῶν τὸν μόσχον λέγεις "' 
Ἰσραὴλ οἵ ἐξαγαγόντες σὲ én γῆς Αἰγύπτου."" 
τυπτόμενος 
καταπονούμενος, TOV ϑεὸν μου οὐκ ap 
τινὲς γριστιαν οὶ “᾽ 
φονευϑέντες * 
ἡἠρνήσασϑε. 


αἰχμαλωτιξόμενος nal 
\ 
κα wodAa* 
yvoupatr εἰ δέκ 
2 ~ c pete 42 2) δ 43 
οὐ τοσοῦτοι" υμεῖς " δὲ μὴ 
\ \ / 
τον Seov πράγματος" 


41 


σὺ 
σου 
ἐγὼ 
σφαδόμενος a 


aah Χριστοῦ" * 
“< ovrot ot Seot 


καὶ 


fa 


NPVNGAVTO, ἀλλ᾽ 
5. ΛΔ ~ 45 
απὸ ψιλοῦ 


14. Καὶ ἕπειδὴ εἴπατε διὰ τί οὐ» εἶπον “)υμγῶς οἵ 


προφῆται περὶ cain gl: ἐρωτῶ ὑμᾶς HAY ὦ, διὰ τί οὐ 
προεῖπον ὑμῖν περὶ τοῦ χριστοῦ," 


μέλλει * 
αὐτῷ ὅτι πλάνος ἐστιν ;" 
ξστέ." 

15. Καὶ μηδέν" 
διὰ τί" τὰς εἰκόνας" 
διὰ τί" 
σὺ" προσεκπύνησας 


μοι εἴπῃς 


καίτοι 


88. ὁ τύπος τοῦ σταυροῦ Ῥ. 

4 ἀλλὰ λέγω δόξα... .. τοῦ Χριόδ- 
τοῦ om. An. 

S eleves P. 

35 ἐφαξόμενος P (sic). 

37 αἱ τυπτόμενος καὶ OMACOMEVOS 
καὶ οἵη. An. 

8 ἔσῃ πολλὰ P, πολλὰ Ern καὶ An. 

ΞΟ ὁ xai PAn. 

 yep1ot1avoi om. P. 

41 60) τοσοῦτοι V, ov TOGOUTOL WS 
An., οὕτως OVK ἠἡρνήσαντο WS P. 

5 ἐν Βαβυλῶνι, μήτε TUMSEVTES 
μήτε add. PAn. 

πο wy om. PAn. 

4 δαρέντες TUMSEVTES NTE δα- 
pévres An. 

4 ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ ψιλοῦ ῥήματος MAVTES 
PAR, 

® roayuaros om. P, 
πράγματος om, An. 

1rov χριότοὺ PAn. 


τὸν Seov 


΄ ? ~ 
ἄνθρωπος παλούμενος ]ησοῦς," 


προσκυνῶ. 
\ ’ / ~ / ’ ~ 

τὴν εἴπονα TOV Ναβουχοδονοσορ ἕν Βαβυλῶνι 
” Ε ἂν \ 

ye ἔχων éenési τον 


10 
ὅτι βλέπετε," ἐλϑεῖν 
μὴ πιστεύσητε" 


"»Ἤ ? / ‘ = 
ὀντῶς ἀνόητοι καὶ fpadeis 
τῇ καρδίᾳ πλάνον nat οὐ Χριστὸν" 


προσδεχόμενοι" 

1ὅ 
λοιπὸν μηδὲ ἐγπαλέσῃς " 
ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖνό μοι εἰπὲ 


Aavinr 


3 καὶ Seov ἡμῶν add. P. 

3 ὁλδχετιε om. P. 

4 &yvex PAn, 

> dpare add P. 

6 πιόστεύδσειτε P, πιότεύσατε An, 

Tal ὅσα ὑμεῖς nat αὐτοῦ ἐξ- 
AY ὧν KAKIGTOV διανοίας καὶ AV ατό- 
χυντίας καὶ παραπλῃξίας λέγετε 
add. P. ἀλλ᾽ οὕτως τὸν ἀληϑινὸν 
Χριότὸν καὶ ϑεὸν, ὃν οἱ προφῆται 
MPOEXHPVERV, καὶ ϑελήδσαντες, 
πλάνον uai οὐ Χριστὸν ἐκπδέχεσϑε 
add. An. 

* ἐσεόϑαι add. P. 

* προδδεδεγμένοι Ῥ. 

° ἐστέ om. P. gs, Mi He 

2 undé ἐγ καλέσῃς om. P. 

3. ἐγὼ add. P. 

4 τὴν εἰκόνα Tov Χριστοῦ P. 

° ou add./P. 

συ om. P. 

7 rov om. P, 


a Ex, xxxii. 4. 


76 


καὶ Ἱερεμίαν καὶ Ἰεξεπκιὴλ " καὶ ἄλλους προφήτας διδάσ- 


κοντάς σε; 
εἰ μὴ" 
ἐφύλαξαν," 
5 Sewpynoavres™ 
M@voews iE 
τῷ ὄρει τῷ Diva, 


καίτοι 


πότε ὁ ϑεὸς τοιαῦτα ἐποίησε τινί: 
οὕτως 
καὶ πυρὸς, καὶ φωνῶν, καὶ σημείων τοιούτων, 
"μάννα βρέξας, προφήτας ἀναδείξας, 
“ἀλλοφύλους " 
τὴν σκηνὴν ὑμῶν αὐτὸς διατυπώ- 
δεύτερον ϑεὸν τοποποιὸν ® 
@ τῆς πολλῆς ὑμῶν πωρωσεως- 
@ τῆς ἀχαρίστου ὑμῶν προαιρέ- 
ἄνω ἕν τῷ ὄρει Μιωῦσης "' 
καὶ καάτῶ ὑμεῖς τὸν μόσχον ἐχωνεύετε ν᾿ 


ἐλάλησεν ἐν Σινὰ" 
10 γων,"" 
/ \ ς » 
νόμον δοὺυς vyuiv,® 
τὰ ἔϑνη ὑποτάξας, 
ξ ? \ 37 
thanas émidovs, 
σας, Mwticéa™ ὡς" 
καταστήσας; 
Manns ** ὑμῶν γνώμης" 
σεως καὶ τυφλώσεως" 
ὑμῶν ἡγωνίξετο" 


ἄνω ἐκεῖνος τὸν Seov παρεκάλει καὶ 
‘ ‘ iad 
TO μάννα ἤσϑιες καὶ τον ϑεὲον Up pices 


προσεκύνεις" 


καὶ εἰκόνι προσεκυνήσατε ἀνθρώπου, 
οἵ pete παῖδες καὶ" 
γὲ τοσαῦτα σημεῖα 
EV Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ ὑπὸ 
εν τῇ Epus pa Saracen,’ ὰ 
ἐν στύλῳ πυρὸς, EV νεφέλῃ φῶτος. τ 


καὶ 
τῷ ϑεῷ " 
καὶ τέρατα 


μόνοι" miota' 


év τῇ ἐρήμῳ, ἐν 


* πότε ὁ Seos τινι 


* διὰ νόμου, καὶ σαλπίγ- 


ἐξολοθρεύσας, τὰς 


ὑμῖν " 

ὦ τῆς 
ς A 
ὑπὲρ 


35 


σὺ τὸν μόσχον 


λέγει γὰρ ὁ Aafid*  &r1 ae Bpwoew@s οὔσης ἐν τῷ 


στόματι αὐτῶν καὶ 


"Ἰεζεκιὴλ Ῥ, Ἐζεκίαν V. καὶ Ἶε- 
ρεμίαν καὶ Ἰεζερειγη)λ om. An. 

" ἀνϑρώπου προσεκυνήσατε Ῥ. 

19 καὶ εἰ μὴ VAn., εἰ καὶ Ῥ. 

" καὶ οιπ. P. " καὶ μὸνοι om, An. 

BramoraP. τῷ Sew om. P. 

δ ποῦ ὑμεὶς τῶ Se@ πιστὰ ἐφυ- 
λαξατε; add. Ῥ, ποῦ εἰπὲ μοι πιστὰ 
ἐφυλάξατε τῷ Sew; add. An. 

5 Sempnoavres VAn., ϑεωρή- 
oasV. 

" Μωσέως PV, 

“tv τῇ ϑαλασόῃ τῇ ipvSpa P. 

" τῷ Σινὰ om. P, ἐν τῷ ὄρει τῷ 
Siva om. An, 

Ὁ fy τῷ oper Σινά add, PAn. 

Ἢ πότε ὁ ϑεὸς τοιαῦτα ἀγαϑὰ 
ἐποίηδε, πότε τινί; P. πότε ὁ 
Seds τοιαῦτα ἀγαϑα τινι ἐποίη- 
όεν; An, 


ὀργὴ δ 


τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἀνέβη ἐπ᾽ av- 


2 gy S1va om. PAn. 

3 οὕτω P. 

* ἐγγελικῶν add, PAn, 

% ὑμὶν PAn., ἡμῖν V. 

* ἀλλοφύλους PAn., 
λους V. 

 ἐπιδεδωκωῶς V, ém1dwoas An, 

* Μωσέα PV. 

39. ὡς ὁπ. An, 

3 roxomotovrvra PAn, 

" ὑμὶν P, αὐτοῦ πρὸς ὑμᾶς P, 
αὐτὸν πρὸς ὑμᾶς An, 

"3 κακίστης P. 

3 Δ] σῆς V. 

“ γωνιζητοῦ. 

3. κάτω add. PAn. 

* ὅτι add. An., καὶ τοῦ “αβὶὲδ 
ἄκουσον λέγοντος pro λέγει γὰρ 
ὁ “αβὲδ P. 

7) ὀργὴ P. 


ἀλλοφυύλ.- 


77 


τοὺς" 5 καὶ Ὁ μή μοι εἴπῃς *° 


41 


4 4 A ~ 
δια τί tov" υἱὸν τοῦ “ 


~ ~ 7 , \ \ 6 “a re 
ϑεοῦ προσκυνῶ add εἰπέ μοι συ," δια τί ὑμεῖς υἱοὺς “ 


nat ΞΘ ΑΈΕΡΩΝ a 
δαιμονίοις," nat* 

τιν ἔγετε " μὴ γένοιτο. 
λαὸν λέγοντος," 


“ὡς λέγει Aa fio, 
᾿ Beehpey wp ; μὴ yap ὑμεῖς πίσ- 
ἄκουσον * Μωύῦσέως" 
καίτοι γε τότε φησὶ 


és υσατὲ τοῖς 


πρὸς τὸν 5 
* δεοσεβὴς ἣν ὁ 


λαὸς τῶν Ἑβραίων --αλλ᾽ ἄκουσον τί λέγει Μιωῦσῆς," 


τῶ yeved ἐδξεστραμμένη " 
ἕν αὐτοῖς" AR 


ce ‘leu κυρίῳ ἀνταποδίδοτε. 
ὑμῶν " 


ἐστίν, υἱοὶ" 
καὶ πάλιν “ οὗτος ὁ λαὸς μῶρος καὶ οὐχὶ 
σοφός" "5 nat πάλιν “ γενεὰ σπολιὰ καὶ διεστραμμένη, 


22 ἃ 


ὁ ἐν τοῖς προφήταις " &u ϑεοῦ δ᾽ 


οἷς οὐ ἔστι πίστις 


10 
nat αλλα μυρία περὶ 

« g \ . 
εἔρηνται" it aOuES 


yap ΡΟΝ τῇ “ ἐγέννησα καὶ ὕψωσα, αὐτοὶ δέ μὲ ἡϑέτη- 


a καὶ" 
φάτνην τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ: 

καὶ ὁ λαός μὲ οὐ συνῆπεν. 
λαὸς πλήρης ἀνομιῶν." "5 


eyv@ βοῦς τὸν HTN A MEV OV καὶ ὄνος τὴν 
Ἰσραὴλ δὲν" 


μὲ οὐπ ἔγνω 15 


οὐαὶ ἔϑνος ἁμαρτωλὸν, 


καὶ πάλιν ὁ αὐτὸς προφήτης 


¢ fe \ t ~ A 63 δέ 
Hoaias προς υμᾶς φησῖν ἀπούσατε λόγον κυρίου, 


88 αἱ πάλιν ἐν πᾶσιν τούτοις 


ἥμαρτον ἔτι λέγοντες “ἐπεὶ ἐπα- 
ταξε πέτραν, καὶ ἐῤῥύησαν ὕδατα, 
καὶ χείμαῤῥοι κατεκλυόδϑηόσαν" μὴ 
καὶ ἄρτον δύναται δοῦναι, ἢ ἑτοι- 
μάδαι τράπεζαν τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ 3” f 
οὐ διὰ τοῦτο λέγει ὅτι “ἤκουσε 
κύριος παὶ ἀνεβάλετο, καὶ πῦρ 
“ne ee : Mi ee eles 
ανηφϑῃ ἐν Ἰαπωῶβ, καὶ opyn ἀνέβη 
ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰόραηλ᾽; 8 add. P. 

39 vaicm. P. * οὖν λοιπὸν ad. P. 

‘ rov om. P. “rou omy;.P. 

“ov om; P, 

“4 rous vious P. 

4“ ὑμῶν καὶ τὰς ϑυγατέρας PAn. 

δ ὡς λέγει AaPid, ἐϑύόδατε τοὶς 
δαιμονίοις, VAn,, ἐϑύσατε τοῖς bat- 
μονίοις, ὡς λέγει ὁ 4 αβὶδ Ῥ. 

7 ἔϑυσαν add. P. 

* yAvar@ add. P. 

4. καὶ axov6ov P. © Μωσέως V. 

1 λέγοντος πρὸς τὸν λαὸν PAn. 

* φησὲὴ om. PAn, 


8. Psa, Ixxvii. 30-31. 
¢ Isa. i. 2-4. 


Ὁ Deut. xxxii. 20. 
f Psa. Ixxvii. 20. 


3 ροδεβηὴς ἦν ὁ λαὸς κ.τ.λ. .... 
ΜΜωύσῆς VAn., πρὸς καιρὸν 5ὲο- 
δσεβοῦντος τοῦ λαοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ὁμῶς τὴν 
εἰς ὕστερον ὑμῶν ἀσέβειαν προλέἕ- 
γοντος καὶ ἐλέγχοντος καὶ Ῥ. 

4 vevedy ἐξεόστραμμένην P. 

8 ἐστιν, υἱοὶ om. P. υἱοὶ om. et Ez6iv 
ΡΙῸ ἐότεν An, ἀποκπαλοῦντος καὶ ἐν 
add. P. 

56. ἄλλαι μυρίαι μαρτυρίαι πονη- 
ραὶ περὶ ὑμῶν εἰσὶν Ῥ, ἄλλαι μυ- 
ρίαι μαρτυρίαι περὶ ὑμῶν πονηραὶ 
εἰσὶν An. 

7 ἐν ταῖς mpopytinais βίβλοις Ῥ, 
ἐν ταῖς προφητείαις ὑμῶν AN, 

δ᾽ rov Seov PAn. 

ὅν εὐρημέναι PAn. 

° 4ai om. PAn. 

% ὑμαρτιῶν PAn, 

δ ρηδὶν om. An. ‘H6aias πρὸς 
ὑμᾶς φησὶν om. et ἁμαρτίας ὑμῶν 
ἐοιαλύπτων πονηρας οὕτω στη- 
λιτεύων λέγει add. P. 


*! μου PAn. 


© Tbhid. vers. 6. 4 bid. 5-6. 


€ Ibid. vers, 21. 


10 


15 


25 


78 


ἄρχοντες Σοδόμων" προσέχετε λόγον “ κυρίου, λαὸς 
Τομόῤῥας."" ὁρᾶτε ὅτι Σοδομίτας καὶ ἀπίστους, καὶ 
λαὸν μῶρον λέγει τοὺς Ἰουδαίους" ὁ Βεὸς, καὶ εἰδωλοθύ- 
ταῦ," καὶ τεκνοθύτας, καὶ einovoraT pas, καὶ ἀπίστους, 
καὶ " " ἀχαρίστους, νὴ ee £0 XOTLO MEV OUS, καὶ ἀγνώμονας," 
καὶ γενεὰν movnpav nat διεστραμμένην, καὶ τέκνα μω- 
μητά" “ “καὶ ἔϑυσαν" δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ seg” “ἐ καὶ ἐγ- 
κατέλιπον ™ Seov τὸν ποιήσαντα αὐτοὺς, καὶ ἀπέστησαν" ib 
ἀπὸ ϑεοῦ ae i ede αὐτῶν. ΝΣ ἐρευνήσωμεν οὖν καὶ 
τὰς γραφὰς," éav”™ περὶ ἄλλου οἱουδήποτε ἔϑνους ἢ 
γένους" τοιαῦτα καὶ " τοσαῦτα nana” ὁ Seos κατήγ- 
γειλεν, ἢ ἐμαρτύρησε δικαίως." 

10. Καὶ γὰρ ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις πεντήκοντα καὶ; δύο 
ἔτῃ ἐποίησαν ϑύοντες ἐν τῷ ναῷ" τοῖς εἰδώλοις" nad τῷ 
διαβόλῳ ἐπὶ Μανασση τοῦ βασιλέως βεβηλωσάντες τὸν 
ναὸν καὶ τὴν πόλιν τοῦ ϑεοῦ." dia τοῦτο ἐν Βαβυλῶνι 
καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ δεύτερον παρέδωπεν ὑμᾶς" τοῖς Χαλδαίοις 
εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν" εἶτα πάλιν ὑμᾶς μετὰ ἑβδομήκοντα " 
etn ἀνεκαλέσατο. ἄρτι οὖν ϑέλω μαϑεῖν ἐξ᾽ ὑμῶν 
μετὰ τὸ ἀνελθεῖν ὑμᾶς ἐκ Βαβυλῶνος καὶ πτισϑῆναι 
τὸν ναὸν ὑμῶν ἐμ δευτέρου" ἐϊ “ Ἱεροσολύμοις καὶ EV 
αὐτῷ ὑμᾶς προσκυνεῖν τῷ Se@ καὶ οὐχὶ εἰδώλοις" ποίαν 
ἁμαρτίαν ἐποιήσατε ἐνώπιον τοῦ ϑεοῦ; ὅτι ἰδοὺ ἐξα- 
κόσια én” ἐψ πάσῃ τῇ γῆ ἐσκόρπισεν ὑμᾶς," καὶ 
ἤγαγε Τῖτον καὶ Οὐεσπασιανὸν ἀπὸ ‘Pons, καὶ διέφ.- 


“ γόμον PAn. * καὶ om. PAn. 
δ᾽ rovs Ἰουδαίους λέγει pro λέγει " τοῦ Seov add. PAn. 


τοὺς Ἰουδαίους PAn. 3 rois δαίμοόιν P. 
06 


6s 


70 


7 


7 


7 


7 


2 


4 


δ 


77 


7 


7 


καὶ οἵη. P. ” re add Ῥ, * τοῦ Seov καὶ τὴν πόλιν P, 

τε υἱοὺς add, Ῥ, * ὁ Seos add. PAn. 

ἵππους τε ϑηλυμαν εἰς add, P. 5.9» 

ϑύοντας P. ' παρ᾽ P. 

ἐγκαταλιπόντας Ῥ, "ἐκ. δευτέρου τὸν ναὸν ὑμῶν 
ἀποστάντας Ῥ. 3 αὐτοῦ Ρ. PAn. 

οὖν καὶ V, δὴ Ῥ, οὖν An, » οὐ τοῖς εἰδώλοις Ῥ, οὐκέτι τοὶς 
λοιπὸν add. An. © eizep Ῥ. εἰδώλοις An. 

ἡ γένους om, PAn., ὁ ἑξακόσια om. P. ὀκτακόσια καὶ 
τοιαῦτα καὶ om. An, πλείονα pro ἐξανύσια An. 

κακὰ om, An, " χίλια add, P. 


“tvdinws P. ἢ ἐμαρτύρησε δι. “lonopmidev ὑμᾶς ἐν πασῃ τῇ 
καίως om, An, yy P. 


δ Isa. i, 10. ' Deut, xxxii. 17, * Ibid. 15. 


79 


Sezpe™ καὶ ἐσφαξεν ἐν Ἱερουσαλὴμ περί που" ἑκατὸν 
nat δέκα μυριάδας" ὡς Ἰώσηπος " συνεγράψατο" καὶ 
ἐνεπύρισαν τὸν ναὸν, καὶ ἐρήμωσαν τὸ ϑυσιαστήριον, 
καὶ τὰ ἅγια, καὶ τὴν πόλιν πᾶσαν, καὶ τὴν Div, nar 
ἠχμαλώτευσαν " ὑμᾶς" καὶ ἔστε ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ ὝΕΣ 
παρμένοι καὶ" cay ΒΕ ΕΠ ables ἕως τῆς σήμερον. καὶ 
ἰδοὺ ἑξακόσια ἑβδομήκοντα" ἔτη οὐ ϑυσιαστήριον, οὐ 
κιβωτὸς, οὐ προφήτης, οὐ τόπος, οὐ τοῦ " πάσχα φυλα- 
κῇ" eine γὰρ ἐὲ ὑμῖν ὁ ϑεὸς μηδαμοῦ ** ποιῆσαιτο πάσχα 
ES @ Ἱεροσολύμων, μήτε EV Αἰγύπτῳ εἰσελθεῖν." idov™ οἱ 
πατέρες ὑμῶν ἁμαρτήσαντες ἀπέλαβον" δεύτερον ALY Ha 
λετεσσευτες, καὶ ὁ ναὸς δὲ ἠρημώϑη, καὶ διηλλάγη ὑμῖν ὁ 
Geos: * ἘΌΝ "dé ποίαν apapriay ἐποιήσατε, καὶ τοιαύτην 


ζ 10 


μεγάλην, ὅτι οὐκέτι ἤγειρεν “' 


ἀνήγαγεν ὑμᾶς ἐς τῶν ἔϑνων ; 
᾿ τοὺς υἱοὺς καὶ τὰς are ἐς τέ μὐρὲ ὑμῶν cs 


ΤΕ" 


. HOw γαον, οὐκέτι 
aie eSvoa- 

δ 

ὥσπερ “ οὗ πα- 


ὑμῖν" 


ον 15 


τέρες ὑμῶν 5 Apa εἰκόνι το ἀν neue ws ENEIVOL 5 apa 


eis TOV ναὸν εἴδωλον ἐστήσατε WOTED*® 


8 διέφϑειρε οἵα. An. épnuwoar P. 

4 ἔόσφαξαν ἐξ ὑμῶν PAn. 

% περί που om. P. pro eodem xav 
An. 

16 ἑματὸν καὶ δέπα μυριάδας V, 
μυριάδας pt P, ἑκατὸν μυριάδας 
An. 

7 Ἰώσηπος ὁ ὑμῶν συγγραφεὺς 
μόνος ταῦτα éuSéuevos An., Ἰώ- 
ὅηππος ὁ δοφὸς ὑμῶν συγγρα- 
φεὺς Ρ. 

δ ηχμαλωώτησαν P (sic). 

° xxi om. P, 

9 ξξακόδσια ἑβδομήκοντα V, Aot- 
mov χίλια Ῥ, ὀκτακόσια καὶ πλείο- 
va An. * rou om, P, 

2 φρυλαττοντὲς P. 

38 εἶπε yap V, καὶ yap εἶπεν P. 

4 μηδαμῶς ἀλλαχοῦ Ρ. 

tt Ay, ΤῸ εἰσελϑεῖν V, εἰ μὴ) 
ἐν Ἱερουόδαλήμ P, εἰ un ἐν ‘lepov- 
δαλήμ. μηδὲ εἰς Αἴγυπτον εἰδελ- 
ϑεὶν An. °° καὶ ἰδοὺ λοιπὸν Ῥ. 

" ἀπέλαβον An., ἀπέλανον V, 
om, ἋΣ. 


" Μανασσῆς; 


*Sevrepov αἰχμαλωτιδϑέντες 
σελ πὸ μὲν O E05 V, Sevrepov 
ἐν Βαβυλῶνι αἰχμαλωτευϑέντες 
éx δευτέρου, καὶ δευτέρου τοῦ 
γαοῦ ἐρημωϑέντος, καὶ διαλλαγῆς- 
vat αὐτους τὸν ϑεὸν καὶ οζεοδομη- 
ϑήναι tov vaov An., év Αἰγύπτῳ 
πρότερον, εἶτα ELS ΠΑΡΑ 23 ἐπ- 
ἤλϑον αἰχμαλωτισϑέντες, καὶ τὴν 
πόλιν πάλιν ἀπέλαβον καταλλα- 
γέντος ὑμῖν τοῦ ϑεοῦ, καὶ wxodo- 
μήϑηῃ ὁ vaos Ῥ. 

 γὺν δὲ V, ὑμεὶς δὲ Ῥ, ὑμεὶς καὶ 
An, 8 ἀνήγειρεν P. 

31 ὑμῖν om. P. 

8. οὐκέτι VAN., ὑμῶν, οὔτε Ῥ. 

88 ὑμᾶς ἐκ τῶν ἔϑνων συνήγα- 
γεν; P. ἀνήγαγεν ὑμᾶς ἐκ τῶν 
ἐχϑρῶν ; An. 

"ἡ ξξο add. P. 

86 ὑμεὶς add. An. 

86 rors δαιμονίοις add, Ρ, 

7 ὡς PAn. 

gs PAn. 

39. ὁ om. P, 


80 


5 ’ 9 “ b ~ 
apa προφητας ἀπεκτείνατε; ουδαμῶς. “δ 


er t ‘ ~4 
HEV οὐτῶς ὑπο ϑεοῦ 


, τ “ 
τίνος οὧὖΥν é&Vé- 


éynarereipsyre ; ἀληϑῶς κἂν 


ὑμεῖς μὴ εἴπητε τὴν αἰτίαν, κᾶν ὑμεῖς σιγήσητε, ot λίϑοι 


κεκράξονται, 


ὅτι ag’ οὗ τὸν Χριστὸν ἐσταυρώσατε 


5 μέχρι καὶ νῦν καὶ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ΟΥΡΟΜΟΡΆΝΟ 4 ἐγυμ- 


γωϑητε," τ 


ons τῆς ** 
μοσχοποιήσαντες, 
τες," 
δαιμονίοις 


47 


60 


10 


ἐδιώχϑητε, τοῦ ναοῦ καὶ τῆς Σιὼν" 
τοῦ νόμου λατρείας. ; 
καὶ εν τῷ ναῷ τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἁμαρτήσαν- 
καὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς αὐτῶν Kal τὰς ϑυγατέρας " 
θύσαντες, ἑβδομήκοντα ἔτη καὶ ἑκατὸν " 


καὶ πά- 
΄ 4 ς ~ ᾿ 
ol yap πατέρες υμῶν οἱ ΜΝ 


τοῖς 


ἐν Βαβυλῶνι τῆς Περσίδος παιδευϑέντες, συνεχωρήϑης- 


’ 62 
OAV TAVTA 


ς ~ 
oav:** ὑμεῖς δὲ οἵ" 


᾿᾽ - ’ 
ἐκεῖνα τὰ ἁμαρτηματα,"" 
᾿ Ἁ 
εἰς Χριστον © 


καὶ ἀνεκλήϑη- 
ἁμαρτήσαντες οὐχὶ" 


ἑβδομήκοντα érn 1) énatov ἐν Βαβυλῶνι τῆς Περσίδος 
Μμῇ ΡΠ 7 p 


58 


15 ἐπαιδεύϑητε, 


~ 3, ς ‘ 
βλήϑητε" ἡμεῖς δὲ τὰ ἔϑνη ὑπο" 
καὶ αὐτῷ δουλεύομεν, καὶ αὐτὸν 
πνεύματι 


ad ah καὶ 


ἀμήν." 


[17.᾽ 


τῷ ἁγίῳ" 


“0 


᾽ »" « , - 2 ᾿ 
αλλ᾽ ἕως τῆς ἡὐφο φρλιτοὶν τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐξε- 


" Χριστοῦ ἐκλήϑημεν, 
“ὁ δοξάξομεν ἅμα τῷ 
εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας" “" 


“ ᾽ ~ ‘ ~ 3 
Iva δὲ ἐκ πολλῆς περιουσίας, καὶ τὰ τῶν Iov- 


δαίων ἀναίσχυντα στόματα καὶ βλάσφημα ἐμφράξω- 


“ οὐδαμῶς om. et apa μὴ καὶ 
ὑμεὶς ὡς οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν τὸν χαλ.- 
χοῦν ὄφιν, τὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ Μωύΐύδέως 
πεποιημένον, προδεκυνήσατε, καὶ 
ἐσεβασϑητε ὡς οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν ; 
καὶ yap καὶ τοῦτο εἰς ἔλεγχον 
ὑμῶν γέγραπται add, P. 

4 τοῦ Seov P. 

“ καὶ add, Ῥ, 

4“ Σιὼν VAn., πόλεως P. 

“ πάντων τῶν P, 

“ λατρειῶν P. 

“4 oi VAn., καὶ P, 
“xai πολλὰ 
add. P, πολλὰ παρανομήσαν τες add. 

An, 

“ ἀσεβήσαντες P, 

“ καὶ τὰς ϑυγατέρας om, P, 

" σῷ διαβόλω PAn, 

"“ ἑβδομήκοντα ἕτῃ καὶ ἑκατὸν 
VAn., ο΄ &r7 ἢ καὶ πλεῖον P. 


παρανομήσαντες 


- " ὅλα ῬΡ͵ 
"τὰ ἁμαρτήματα ἐκεῖνα Ῥ. 

“a aera sete PAn., avexdArSn- 
Gav V. 

* of om. P. 

“els τὸν Χριστὸν P, ἐν Χριστῷ 
An, 

δ᾽ οὐχ PAn. 

8 ἑβδομήκοντα ἔτῃ κ.ιτιλ. ..... 
ἐπαιδειίϑητεῦ, ἑβδομήκοντα οὐδὲ 
ἑκατὸν ἕτῃ μόνα An., ἑβδομήκον- 
τα ἔτῃ Ῥ. 

9 υἱοὶ An, 

εχ αὐτῷ An, 

"' σὺν An, 

53 αὐτοῦ add, An, 

"τῶν αἰώνων add, An. 

“ ἡμεὶς δὲ τὰ ἔϑνη ὑπὸ Χρισ- 
τοῦ ἐκλήϑημεν κιτιλι ..... ἀμὴν 
om. P, 

‘ad finem P. totum om, V. 


81 


μὲν, καὶ ἡμῖν τοῖς ὑπὸ Χριστοῦ σεσωσμένοις πλείονα 
τὰ νικητήρια ὑπαάρδῃ ἀναγπαίως αὐτά. καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν 
τοῦ Δανιὴλ λόγων, μᾶλλον δὲ τῶν τοῦ ϑεοῦ τῶν ὑπὸ 
τοῦ ἀγγέλου πρὸς αὐτὸν ῥηθέντων, ποιησώμεθα τὴν 
ἐξέτασιν, ἀποδειμνύντες ὅτι λοιπὸν τοῦ ϑεοῦ τέλεον 
ἀποστραφέντος τὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, οὐκέτι λοιπὸν παρ᾽ 
αὐτοῖς οὔτε ἱερωσύνη, οὔτε ναὸς, οὔτε αὐτὰ τὰ τῆς πό- 
Aews ἤϑη καὶ πράγματα ἐπανήξει: nat δῆλον ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν 
τῶν τοῦ ἀγγέλου ῥημάτων, ““Δαντὴλ᾽ γὰρ φησὶν ““ ἀνὴρ 
ἐπιδϑυμιῶν, σύνες ἐν τοῖς λόγοις οἷς éy@ ἦλθον λαλῆσαι 
πρὸς σε, ὅτι εἷς καιροῦ πέρας οἵ ἑβδομάδες, φησὶ, συνετ- 
μηϑησαν ἐπὶ τὸν λαόν Gov, καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν πόλιν τοῦ oino- 
SounShvar:”* “4 καὶ οἰκοδομηϑήσεται πλατεία nal περί- 
τεῖχος, καὶ ἐμμενωθήσονται ot καιροί: "Ὁ" καὶ “ano 
ἐξόδου λόγων τοῦ οἰκοδομηϑῆναι Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἕως 
Χριστοῦ ἡγουμένου ἑβδομάδες ἑπτὰ παὶ ἑβδομάδες 
ἑξηπκονταδύο, ἢν ὅπερ εἰσὶν ἕτη τετραπόσια ay * ““ καὶ 
ἀρϑήσεται ϑυσία καὶ σπονδὴ καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν βδέλυγμα 
τῆς ἐρημώσεως. ew πότε οὖν ἤρϑη ἡ ϑυσία, καὶ ἡ σπον- 
δὴ), καὶ ἡ ϑυσία τοῦ νόμου; : οὐχὶ τοῦ χριστοῦ ἐλθόντος: 
τίς ἐστιν ὁ χρισϑεὶς ἅγιος ἁγίων εἰ μὴ ὁ χριστὸς; περὶ 
οὗ καὶ τῆς ἐνδόξου αὐτοῦ παρουσίας λέγει ὁ αὐτὸς Δανιὴλ 
“<< ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράματι τῆς νυκτὸς, καὶ ἰδοὺ μετὰ τῶν 
γε σελ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενος, 
καὶ ἕως τοῦ παλαιοῦ τῶν ἡμερῶν ἔφϑασεν, καὶ προσ. 
νέχϑη αὐτῷ" καὶ αὐτῷ ἐδοϑη ἡ ἀρχὴ, καὶ ἡ τιμὴ, καὶ ἡ 
βασιλεία, καὶ παντες οἵ λαοὶ, φυλαὶ, γλῶσσαι αὐτῷ δου- 
λεύσουσιν" ἡ ἐδουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος ἥτις οὐ 
παρελεύσεται; nat ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας 
οὐ διαφϑαρήσεται."" ἰδοὺ σαφῶς διὰ τῶν εἰρημένων 
ἐμάϑομεν ὃ ὅτι αὐτός ἔστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Seov, ὁ σαρκωϑεὶς 
nat παϑὼν δι ἡμᾶς, καὶ ἀναστὰς En hae καὶ ἀναλη- 
φϑεὶς ἕν δόξῃ πρὸς τὸν αὐτοῦ πατέρα, καὶ μέλλων ἔρ- 
χεσϑαι μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ δόξης οὐρα- 
νίου κρῖναι δῶντας καὶ νεμρούς. ὅμως καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν 
ἀκούσωμεν, “2 ἐθεώρουν " vap φησὶν “ ἕως οὗ ϑρόνοι 
ἐτέθησαν, nat ὁ παλαιὸς τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐκαάϑισεν " τὸ 
ἔνδυμα αὐτοῦ λευκὸν ὡσεὶ χιῶν, καὶ ἡ ϑρὶξ THS κεφαλῆς 
αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ ἔριον naSapov: ὁ ϑρόνος αὐτοῦ φλοξ πυρὸς, 


Δ Dan. ix. 23-24. Ὁ Tbid.' vers. 25. © Thid. 4 vers, 27 © Dan. vii. 13-14. 
6 


Or 


10 


15 


20 


25 


30 


35 


10 


15 


20 


25 


30 


35 


82 


ot τροχοὶ αὐτοῦ πῦρ φλέγον" ποταμὸς πυρὸς εἷλκεν 
ἕμπροσϑεν αὐτοῦ" χίλιαι χιλιάδες ἐλειτούργουν αὐτῷ, 
καὶ μύριαι μυριάδες παρειστήπεισαν αὐτῷ Ἐριτήριον 
ἐκάϑισεν, καὶ βίβλοι ἡνἐῴχϑησαν ἘΣ ἔφριξεν τὸ πνεῦ- 
μά μου, ἐγὼ Δανιήλ." λοιπὸν δεῖ πιστώσασϑαι τὰ 
εἰρημένα ἐκτῶν τοῦ Σὰ ῥημάτων, ὅτι παρὰ Ἰουδαί- 
ous οὐκέτι ἔσται οὔτε ναὸς, οὔτε πόλις, OUTE τι τῶν παρ᾽ 
αὐτοῖς νομίμων. εἰ καὶ ἐξ ἄπρας ἀνοίας ταῦτα προσδο- 
κῶσιν ἄκουσον οὖν τί ὁ ἄγγελος εἴρηκεν, ὅτι φησὶν “¢ ἕως 
συντελείας καιρῶν συντέλεια δωθήσεται ἐπὶ τὴν ἐρήμω- 
σιν, ity τουτέστιν ἕως συντελείας τῶν αἰώνων καὶ τοῦ 
κόσμου παντὸς συντέλεια δωθήσεται ἐπὶ τὴν ἐρήμω- 
σιν τῆς τὲ πόλεως καὶ τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ ἰουδαϊκοῦ" ἕως, 
φησὶ, συντελείας καιρῶν Kal αἰώνων ἐρήμωσις τελείως 
καϑέξει τὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων: ὅταν δὲ ἀπούσεις, ὦ Ἰου- 
δαῖε, συντέλειαν, τί λοιπὸν προσδοκᾷς; τί νοῦν δεῖ 
προσέχειν τῷ λέγοντι; ἕως συντελείας συντέλειαν ἔσεσ. 

Sait nai ἐρήμωσιν, ἢ τοῖς ληρωδοῦσιν ῥήμασιν ἀναπο- 
δείνιτοις ; ἵνα δὲ μὴ ἐπιμείκιστον καὶ πέρα τῆς διηγήσεως 
Sexalveaier TOV λόγον, ὅπερ μικροῦ δεῖν ἡμᾶς παρέ- 
δραμε, τοῦτο προσϑέντες τοῖς εἰρημένοις καταπαύσω- 
μὲν τὸν λόγον - διὸ φησὶν ὁ λέγων τὰ ἐθεώρουν τότε ἀπὸ 
φωνῆς τῶν λόγων τῶν μεγάλων ὧν τὸ κέρας ἐκεῖνο 
ἐλάλει, ἕως ἀνῃρέϑη τὸ ϑηρίον " ἊΣ πρόδηλον δὲ ὅτι τὸ 9η- 
ρίον ὁ ἀντίχριστός ἐστιν" ὁ γὰρ υἱὸς τοῦ ϑεοῦ" * ἐρχό- 
μενος ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ," " xaSas γέγραπ- 
Tal, ὧν ἀνελεῖ αὐτὸν τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ re 
αὐτῷ yap πρέπει ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. 

ἀμήν. 

18. Ταῦτα ἐπ πολλῶν ὀλίγα ἐκ τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν 
παρεϑέμεϑα πρὸς μὲν ἡμετέραν τῶν χριστιανῶν μείξονα 
πίστωσιν, πρὸς ἔλεγχον δὲ τῆς ἰουδαϊκῆς σπληροκαρδίας 
καὶ φρενοβλαβίας, ὅτι ὁ εἷς τῆς ἀγίας καὶ φωοποιοῦ τριά- 
δος ϑεὸς, λόγος καὶ ϑεοῦ υἱὸς, ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χρισ- 
τὸς, αὐτὸς διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν. σωτηρίαν ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτων τῶν 
ἡμερῶν ἐνηνθρώπισεν EM τῆς γον ας ἀχράντου δεσ- 
ποίνης ἡμῶν ϑεοτόκου καὶ ἀεὶ παρϑένου Mapias, καὶ 
πάντα ϑεοπρεπῶς ἀπεργασάμενος, nal@s καὶ οἱ ἅγιοι 


Γ δια. vers. 9-10. ® vers. 15. » Dan. ix. 27. ‘ vii. 11. 
* of. Dan, vii. 13; Matt. xxiv. 30, of. Isa. xi. 4 


83 


mpopyrat προεῖπον, ἔσωσεν En τῆς τοῦ ἐχϑροῦ πλάνης 
καὶ δουλείας τὸ γένος ἡμῶν" ὑπὲρ οὖν τῶν τοσούτων 
εὐεργεσιῶν, ὧν τυχεῖν παρὰ 7S | αὐτοῦ ἀγαϑότητος 
ἡἠξιώϑημεν, σπουδάσωμεν αὐτῷ εὐάρεστοι ἀναδειχϑῆς- 
ναι διὰ τῆς τῶν ἁγίων, αὐτοῦ ἐντολῶν ἐγτληρώσεως, 
ὅπως τῶν αἰωνίων nal ἀτελευτήτων ἀγαθῶν ἐπιτύχω- 
μὲν EV αὐτῷ Χριστῷ τῷ ϑεῷ ἡμῶν" ᾧ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ 
πράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων" ἀμήν. | 


NOTES. 


Tue TiTLE.—Fora full discussion of the title see p. 37 ff. It is there 
shown that the word ‘Avaéraéiov, which occurs in V, did not originally 
form a part of the title, and it is therefore omitted in our edition. 

P. 51, 1. 9 ff. The incident here referred to by the Christian consti- 
tuted a favorite argument for those who wrotein support of image worship. 
The passage in Genesis reads, in the A. V., ‘‘Israel bowed himself upon 
the bed’s head.” The Hebrew word translated bed is ΠΟ, which means 
bed or staff, according as it is pointed mr) or NY. The LXX. chose 


the latter meaning, and translated προσεκύνησεν Ἰόραὴλ ἐπὶ τὸ ἄκρον 
τῆς ῥάβδου αὐτοῦ, which was followed exactly by the author of the Epis- 
tle to the Hebrews, xi. 21. In this form the passage was frequently quoted 
in support of image-worship, as, 6. g., by Psuedo-Athanasius in the extract 
quoted just below, and.by Leontius in his discourse mentioned on p. 17. 
The Vulgate, meanwhile, translated the passage in the Epistle to the He- 
brews adoravit fastigium virge ejus, giving quite a different turn to the sen- 
tence, and furnishing a still stronger argument for the worship of images, 
which Latin writers were not slow to take advantage of. Our dialogue 
likewise follows the Vulgate in making the wxpov τῆς ῥάβδου the direct 
object of zpoGexvvyee. 

P. 51, 1. 14 ff. Compare the words of Pseudo-Athanasius in the Quas- 
tiones ad Antiochum ducem, xxxix. (Migne, Patr. Grec., xxviii. 621). The 
same line of argument is there presented. The incident in regard to Jacob, 
mentioned above, is reproduced in the following form: “ai ὥσπερ Ἰακὼβ 
μέλλων τελευτὰν ἐπὶ τὸ ἄκρον τῆς ῥάβδου τῷ Ἰωσὴφ προδερύνησεν, 
οὐ τὴν ῥάβδον τιμῶν, ἀλλὰ τὸν ταύτην κατέχοντα x.t.A. Compare 
also the discourse of Leontius mentioned in the previous note, also John of 
Damascus, De jide orthodoxa, iv. 11, and Gilbert’s Tractatus de incarnatione 
ὁ. Judeos (described on p. 23). The same argument occurs very frequently. 
Another still more common method was to show that even under the Jew- 
ish dispensation images were used and sanctioned by God, as, 6. g., the 
brazen serpent, the cherubim, etc. Still another way of meeting the Jews 
upon this subject appears in our dialogue, p. 75 ff. This introductory sec- 
tion upon image worship occurs in An., not at the beginning, but in the 
second treatise, in connection with the other passage just mentioned. The 
first tract of An. contains no reference to images. 


86 


P. 51, 1. 23 ff. This shows the long standing of the practice. The pas- 
sage from Pseudo-Athanasius referred to above makes the same statement. 

P. 52, 1. 8. The original dialogue begins at this point. In regard to 
the addition of the opening paragraph, see p. 37 ff. 

P. 52, 1. 6. This is a favorite passage with the authors of works against 
the Jews, but it is commonly employed in a different way; cf., 6. g., the use 
of the same text in the Dialogue of Simon and Theophilus, p. 19 (Harnack’s 
Texte und Untersuchungen, Bd. 1. Heft 3). 

P. 52, 1. 8. According to Theodoret (in his commentary on Daniel) this 
passage was applied by the Jews to Zerubbabel. 

P. 52, 1.9. The agreement of An. with our dialogue commences at this 
point. It has two opening pages which are entirely wanting in P and Y. 
It begins the present passage with the words εἰπὲ δὲ δυὸ x.7.A. Its mixed 
construction, sometimes direct discourse as in the present instance, some- 
times indirect, clearly shows it to be a compilation, at whose basis lies an 
original of dialogistic form. 

P. 52, 1.11. The form of the Jew’s answer is significant. A real Jew 
would certainly have responded: ‘At least the half,” ete., putting the 
emphasis upon the. greatness of Solomon’s kingdom, and not upon the 
smallness of it, as he is here represented as doing. This is but one of many 
marks of the artificial character of the dialogue. 

P. 53, 1. 1. The abrupt way in which the Jew passes on to a new sub- 
ject, apparently quite satisfied with the Christian’s answer, however meagre 
that answer may be, is a characteristic feature of the majority of these 
dialogues, and another mark of their artificial nature. The. present dia- 
logue is, however, extreme in this respect, for neither assent nor dissent is 
ever expressed by the Jew, who occupies, in fact, quite a passive position, 
and drops more and more into the background as the dialogue proceeds. 
Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho, and Evagrius’ Dialogue of Simon and The- 
ophilus, are a deviation from the common rule, for in them the conclusions 
of the Christian are often disputed, and he is then obliged to ground 
them more firmly. This is a significant fact, for at the time when these 
dialogues were written (the Dial. of Simon and Theophilus being regarded 
as a reproduction of the Dial. of Papiscus and Jason) the Jew was an 
active factor who had to be reckoned with by Christian writers, and 
not a mere lay figure as he afterward became, It is natural, therefore, to 
find in the earlier works an honest effort to meet real objections which 
must have been raised by all Jews, as Jews. It would not be out of place 
to urge the fact, that the Dial. of Simon and Theophilus exhibits this char- 
acteristic, as an additional argument for Harnack’s theory, that it is a 
reproduction of a much more ancient dialogue. 

P. 53, 1. 13. The epithet Seoroxos was very frequently applied to 
Mary by the Fathers of the fourth century (Eusebius, Athanasius, the two 
Gregories, etc.), and it was perhaps current in Alexandria in the third, 


87 


though no absolute proof of this is at hand. It was officially adopted as an 
appellation of Mary at the Council of Ephesus (431), in opposition to Nes- 
torius. 

ἀεὶ tapSévov. The doctrine of the continued virginity of Mary is not 
older than Jerome. It appears in the Orient about as early as in the Occident. 
The same doctrine is discussed in the Dial. of Simon and Theoph., in Gil- 
bert’s Disputatio Judwi cum Christiano (see p. 24), and in the anonymous 
Tractatus adv. Judwos (see p. 27). In the present instance, the words 
appear simply as part of a technical phrase long in current use, 

It is possible, though only a possibility, that the words did not occur in 
the original Dialogue of Papiscus and Philo. They exist, to be sure, in all 
the extant witnesses, but they may have crept into the text through the 
unconscious error of a copyist, to whom the phrase had become so natural, 
in connection with the name of Mary, that he could scarcely avoid using it 
when writing the latter word, It is noticeable that in the present instance 
no emphasis is laid upon the virginity of Mary ; the point is simply that 
Christ was born of Mary, and the Jew takes it thus, and reveals no knowl- 
edge of the theological phrase introduced by the Christian, in which the 
miraculousness of the Saviour’s birth is assumed. The Jew, it might 
seem, could hardly have passed such a claim. by unnoticed, and indeed 
we tind him objecting to it in the Dialogue of Theophilus and Simon, and 
in many of the later dialogues. Were our work the account of an actual 
dialogue between a Jew and a Christian, we should, therefore, be war- 
ranted in rejecting the words; but the artificial character of this and of 
other similar dialogues deprives the silence of the Jew of the significance 
which it would otherwise have. It remains therefore not a probability, 
but only a possibility, that these words were not a part of the original 
dialogue. The difference between the simple formula used here and the 
much fuller one used in P on p. 82 is very significant. 

The passage, which occurs at this point in P, is omitted by V and An., 
and is clearly a later insertion of RP. It breaks the connection, and the 
answer of the Jew has relevancy only when taken in direct connection with 
Μαρίας, as it stands in V. 

P. 54, 1. 11. αὐτὸς τὸν υἱὸν κύριον ὁμολογ εἴ. An. enlarges upon 
this subject, inserting almost half a page found neither in RV nor in RP. 

5, 1. 14. Cf. Justin’s Dial. c. Trypho, c. 34. 

1, 3. Cf. οὗν: c. 49. 

56, 1.6. This external setting of the dialogue is, of course, omitted 
56, 1.17 ff. This also. 

56, 1. 22. The plural form, οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, of P seems to have been 
caused by the reference to the crowd of Jews which has just preceded. 
The writer of RP apparently thinks of the audience as taking part in the 
discussion at this point, while RV confines it-still to the single Jew. 


88 


P. 57, 1. 10. This passage from Isaiah is quoted also on p. 66 in the 
section peculiar to P. It is given there in a somewhat different form, 
which shows clearly a different hand. In the 7estimonia of Pseudo-Gregory 
the passage occurs in the form found here. It differs from Tischendorf’s 
text of the LXX., in which ϑαυμαόστὸς and the following words are omitted. 
The Codex Alexandrinus, however, contains all except the word Seds, and 
the Codex Sinaiticus contains the whole. 

P. 57, 1. 14. It is very significant that, in the passage inserted here by 
P, the phrase ϑαυμαστὸς GUufovdos is omitted, in agreement with the 
form of the quotation given on p. 66, and over against the form contained 
in Vand An. The difference of authorship mentioned in the previous note 
is thus further confirmed. 

P. 57, 1. 15. The passage attributed here to Jeremiah is taken from 
the book of Baruch, The citation of this book under the name of Jere- 
miah was quite common. This same passage is referred to Jeremiah, for 
instance, by Cyprian in his Testimonia, by the Pseudo-Gregorian Testimonia, 
by Gregentius in his Dialogue with Herbanus, by Evagrius in the Dialogue 
of Simon and Theophilus, ete. In the work of Gilbert of Westminster (see 
above, p. 24) the passage is attributed by the Christian to Jeremiah, but 
the Jew denies Jeremiah’s authorship, and calls the book of Baruch apoc- 
ryphal. The Christian contends, on the other side, that the words were 
spoken by Jeremiah, and that Baruch took them down from his mouth. 

P. 58, 1. 6. Τὸ is noteworthy that Justin, in quoting this passage from 
the Psalms (Ps. χον. 10), adds the apocryphal words ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου, and 
that Tertullian and Evagrius add the corresponding words a ligno. 

P. 58, 1. 7. .The passage inserted here by P occurs neither in V nor in 
An. and is undoubtedly a later addition (cf. p. 31). The quotation from Mala- 
chi, however, occurs in a different part of An. in quite another connection, 
and there under the name of Isaiah. 

P. 58. 1. 12 ff. This passage (Gen xlix. 10) is very frequently quoted 
in works against the Jews, especially at a later period, when great stress 
was laid upon the misfortunes of the Jews over against the prosperity of 
the Christians. . 

P, 59, 1. 10. These were the words of the High Priest, not of Christ. 

P. 60, 1. 5. According to tradition, St. Helena built a Christian church 
upon Mt, Sinai, and Justinian founded a monastery there two centuries 
later, 

P. 60, 1. 9 ff. Compare Theodoretus’ Comment. in Ezech., x\viii.: “at 
iva τὰ ἄλια ἀντιλίπω μυρία ὄντα, ἔτι νῦν ἐν roils Ἱεροσολύμοις, ἧτε 
τοῦ σταυροῦ txxAnota, καὶ ἡ ἀνάστασις, καὶ ἡ ἀνάληψις, καὶ ἡὶ ἐν τῇ 
Ζιὼν ἐκκλησία, καὶ ἡ ἱερὰ Βηϑλεὲμ, καὶ ἕτεροι δὲ εὐκτήριοι τόποι 
μυρίοι." Compare also Gregentius’ Dialogue with Herbanus, p. 602 (ed. 
Galland.). 

P. 61, 1. 9, note 84. The χιλίους χρόνους of P must be taken us a 


89 


round number, for below (pp. 78 and 79) the author indicates that he is 
writing 1,000 years after the destruction of Jerusalem (see p. 42 ff.). 

P. 61, 1. 16. Upon the insertion of P at this point, as indicating the 
date of RP, see p. 43. 

P. 61, 1.18. σφραγ ἐξ is used as signum crucis by Athanasius, Gregory 
Naz., and others. Cf. Chrysostom’s Homilia de adorat. S. crucis, where the 
reason for this use of the word is given. 

P. 62, 1. 10. χρυσοῦν Gravpov. Whether these words refer to a specific 
golden cross, or whether the term is used to indicate any cross which might 
be used in worship, I do not know. I have not found a parallel expression 
in any other work. 

P. 64, 1.11. Such statements as this in regard to the Christians, when 
thrown into the present tense, seem to imply a hostile attitude of the 
surrounding world toward them; and this coincides with their actual posi- 
tion among the Mohammedans from the eighth century on. The statement 
cannot be insisted on in the present case as indicating peculiar hostility 
against the Christians in the home or at the period of the author, for the 
words may be used of the position of the Christians in general, or they may 
even be purely rhetorical and have reference only to the condition of the 
Christians in ancient times. 

P. 65, 1. 1. Upon the significance of these dates of V and An., see 
p. 42. 

P. 65, 1.6. This is the only place in the dialogue where V has the 
plural Ἰουδαῖοι, and here P has the singular, which undoubtedly stood 
in the oldest form of the text. It is difficult to account for the plural form 
in this one place, when it occurs nowhere else; but it is possible that the 
long passage upon the affairs of the Jews in general, in which the Jews are 
addressed over and over again in the plural number, may have influenced 
the copyist of V, as the mention of the crowd of Jewish spectators influ- 
enced in one passage the copyist of P (see p. 87). 

At this point begins the second tract of An. 

P. 65, 1. 17. At this point begin the greatest divergencies between RP 
and RV (see §§ 4 and 5 of the Introduction). Paragraph 12 is printed 
entire in the form given by V, and the same paragraph is then printed entire 
in the form given by P, the differences between the two forms being so great 
as to render any other method impracticable. The paragraph, which in V 
fills but sixteen lines, in P fills more than seven pages, beginning at p. 66, 1. 
8. An. contains only a part of the matter peculiar to P, and the form and 
arrangement of that common part is so different in the two works that it is 
impossible satisfactorily to indicate the parallels. The text of P is there- 
fore given without variations. 

P. 66, 1.14. Cf. the note upon this passage (Isa. ix. 6) on p. 88. 

P. 66, 1. 17. The use made of this passage (Isa. ix. 1-2) by our author 
is quite peculiar (cf. the interpretation of it given in Matt. iv. 14-16). He 


90 


seems to have no idea of Palestinian geography, for he represents Christ as 
born in Bethlehem, and yet refers to the lands of Zebulun and Naphtali 
as the place of his birth. How he came to commit such a blunder, I do 
not know. The use made of the text in Matt. iv. 14-16, is quite different; 
so also in Cyprian’s Testimonia. The text does not occur in Justin's 
Dialogue with Trypho, in Tertuliian’s Adv. Judeos, nor in the Dialogue of 
Simon and Theophilus. 

P. 67, 1.27 ff. This passage is closely connected in subject with 1, 12. 
The intervening sentences look like an insertion by a different hand. The 
passage moreover is omitted by An., which is another mark of the originality 
of the latter over against RP. 

P. 68, 1. 31. The passage quoted here (Ps. xl. 10) is referred to by 
almost all works of this kind as foretelling the betrayal of Christ by Judas, 
and is as a rule the only passage quoted as a prophecy of that act. But An. 
quite peculiarly omits it and quotes instead Ps. ii. 1-2, and interprets it as 
referring to the betrayal. The latter passage in P follows the other one, 
but is referred, not to the betrayal, but, as by all other writers, to the plots 
of the Jews, of Herod and of Pilate, against Christ. 

P. 68, 1. 34. Cf. Isidore’s Contra Judwos (see p. 22), i. 19, 1: ‘* Quare 
fremuerunt gentes, id est Romani, et populi meditati sunt inania, hoc est 
Judi? Astiterunt reges terre, hoc est Herodes et Pilatus, et principes 
convenerunt in unum, scilicet principes Sacerdotum et seniores Judworum, 
adversus dominum et adversus Christum ejus.” 

P. 69, 1. 8. The sudden change of construction here is peculiar (cf. the 
remarks on p. 37). It is the same form that occurs frequently in An., but 
happens to be omitted by itin this particular passage. It is probable there- 
fore that the writer of RP had become familiar with the expression in using 
An., and inserted it here, in introducing a new subject, without thinking 
of its inconsistency with the dialogistie form of the rest of his work. 

P. 69, 1. 30. It is peculiar that this same form of appeal occurs in the 
Demonstratio of Hippolytus (see p. 14), chap. vii., but there in quite a different 
connection, as follows: διὰ ri, ὦ προφῆτα, εἰπὲ ἡμῖν, τίνος χάριν 6 ναὸς 
ἠρημώθη; apa διὰ τὴν πάλαι μοσχοποιίαν; apa διὰ τὴν τοῦ λαοῦ 
εἰδωλολατρείαν ; εἐρα διὰ τὸ τῶν προφητῶν αἷμα; Apa διὰ τῆς μοιχείας 
καὶ πορνείας Ιόραήλ; οὐδαμῶς φησὶν " x.r.A, Aside from the opening 
phrase, this passage reminds us of p. 79 ff. of our dialogue. But there exist 
no other resemblances between our dialogue and the brief fragment of the 
Demonstratio known to us, 

P. 70, 1. 18. This quotation is from Zechariah and not from Jeremiah. 
Matthew also gives it as from Jeremiah, and that accounts for the error here, 
for the writer reproduces Matthew’s text exactly at this point, and does not 
follow the LXX. The same error is committed by the author of the Dialogue 
of Gregentius with Herbanus, but the Pseudo-Greg. Testimonia correctly 
attribute the words to Zechariah. 


91 


P. 70, 1. 17. The pretended site of the Potter’s field is still shown (see 
Smith’s Bible Dict., art. Aceldama). 

P. 70, 1. 20. It is peculiar that here the quotation, which is in the 
original prophecy in close connection with the preceding, should be correctly 
attributed to Zechariah. The ascription of the previous words to J eremiah 
by Matthew was enough to make our author and others ascribe them to him, 
although they could not have quoted these words from Zechariah, as they do 
quote them, without seeing that the other words were but a part of the same 
passage. The incident shows how slavishly the New Testament was followed. 

P. 70, 1. 27 ff. The writer here takes liberties with the text in omitting 
the word “Solomon,” which occurs in the original. 

P. 70, 1. 88 ff. Cf. John Dam., de fide orthod. ἵν. 14; 

P. 72, 1. 27. P quotes this passage (Zech. xii. 10) exactly in the form 
given in Theodotion’s version of the Old Testament, which differs from the 
form given in the LXX., and also from that given in John xix. 37, where 
the passage is quoted. 

P. 74,1. 4. For the bearing of these sentences upon the question as to 
the home of our dialogue, see p. 43 ff. All the cults mentioned point to 
Egypt, except those of Cyzicus and of Artemis, which point to Asia Minor 
(cf. Pliny, xxxvi. 15, where the temple of Cyzicus is mentioned). 

P. 75, 1. 16. This passage occurs in An. in the same connection, but 
has joined with it the opening paragraph of our dialogue. The combina- 
tion in An. is clearly later than the separation in P and Y. For the com- 
bination of the two detached passages, the reason is plain enough, but their 
separation, if they were originally one, would be inexplicable. 

P. 76, 1. 8 ff. This section is very similar to passages in many later 
works against the Jews, nearly all of which devote considerable space to 
the blindness and wickedness of the Jews in the face of all God's provi- 
dences. Compare also Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho, Ὁ. 131. 

P. 76, 1.12 ff. See Ex. iv. 16; vii. 1; xvi. 19. 

P. 78,113 ff. Of. If. Kings, xx1. 

P. 78, 1. 24. On this date see p. 42. 

P. 79, 1. 7. As was shown on p. 42, it is probable that πενταπόσια 
should be read here instead of ἑξακόσια. I have not, however, cared to 
introduce a conjectural emendation into the text, and have therefore 
allowed the suspected word to stand. 

P. 79, 1.134%. Cf. the quotation from the work of Hippolytus given on 
p. 90. 

P. 80, 1. 2 ff. In the work of Thaddeus Pelysiota against the Jews 
(see p. 18), this sentence occurs word for word, and the whole line of 
thought of the context is similar. The resemblance is so great as to neces- 
sitate some sort of literary relationship, but what that may be I am not 
prepared to state, Ihave noticed no other striking resemblance between 
the two works. 


92 


P. 80, 1. 20. The dialogue as given in V comes to an end at this point, 
as also the second tract of An. The third tract of An. contains scattering 
points of resemblance to P in connection with the prophetic details of 
Christ’s life, as mentioned on p. 36. Otherwise it is quite different from P, 
containing a mass of material not found in the latter. 

P. 81, 1. 30 ff. The simplicity of this confession of faith is noteworthy 
at so late a date. Compare what is said on the subject in§1. Cf. also 
Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho, c. 34, 85, 126, 132. 

P. 82, 1. 25. The quotation resembles the text of Matthew more closely 
than that of Daniel, but differs from both, and from all the parallel passages 
in the Gospels, in substituting θεοῦ for ἀνθρώπου. 

P. 82, 1. 27. The author allows himself some license here in substitut- 
ing for the ἐσεβῃ of Isaiah an αὐτὸν referring to the Antichrist. He 
evidently quotes from memory, and as a consequence quotes the passage 
from Isaiah (if this is the passage he intends to quote, and I can refer his 
words to no other) inexactly. 

P. 82, 1. 30 ff. These words are very significant, as showing that the 
intention of the work was to confirm the faith of the Christians rather than 
to refute the Jews (see p. 8). | 

P. 82, 1. 36 ff. Compare the heaped-up epithets of Mary with the much 
simpler formula on p. 53. 


SCRIPTURE REFERENCES. 


PAGE PAGE 
Εἰ ΕΠ ESM. hates sles ΠΣ ΠῚ πα, Dorin Mopeds ote ee eee 55 
EME, yak aes eke Dees 51 ELSI te γα ΡΣ ae 67 
SEA. Ae wens caters 58 Sats | i pee Ae Aes Shh ere 55, 67 
Or NE a cos ds! al ew tase ae 75 [eed ar tt ee ae 71 
emi Sewinl 60. τ λυ τε ἐπ ἐς 72 ἐν i Ξ A A Aer ΣῊ ak © ἐν τ 67 
MOOREA TIP eae. Sh een ihe 77 5. 1 ag | ga eee se Say 7 
ΣΥΝ is ape ae eee a i of ad Eee oe Pre fare ars 77 
EDs "CRO Aeaet Atle hag: eee 18 Ae DSO =P εν ease ahs 7 
eee ee Sakis Air cer eee ete 78 serve Pt) Προ oe 66, 68 
SC, | Para ae a ee Se oleae th τ P1025. eee ae es oe 58 
Mean ee es vie snc lee 67 | IRSA St el ees ore ee 67 
πῖνε 69 [exxvit. G6 τ ceeee. eae i 
MOEN VIED Up a ek ook ee Saree 73 i y PANE Tree one 73 
ye diy HE I, NERS See yl ane 68 χον πον 58 
Se Er AUER ΟΣ Sacre 52 BEV Αι owes aera oe 58 
See ak Bs ΠΣ ohne 52 ΙΕ τ eee Are 54 
ἀρ ΘΑ ΠΡ σεν ΟΣ Sete ae 66 ger” Mere ek ee ee 54 
ΜΠ Στ Oo roe me 68 EE Fate eh ER Re 54 
Ἐν Ae Septet nah cece Sates S 73 ὌΧ ρθε, τες dale a urn eee 56, 57 
rg) | IR Sn na το κι τ" 65, 66 ΣΟ Εν: δθ 
SMD (x. <i eee Ή where γ8 ΣΙ τ τ ee τς ΤΥ Ν᾿ τς 09 
aa 8] ee Rs ge a Pe δ Prove Wo 94-26) das cack gay 53, 55 
δὴν. 1 CE 8 OE a eee FE ORD DP ALE Bins ia caw οι 7 
aley | San ne rar en eer es rer Gy 7h sat BAS 2s ciemsiae os cote πο: 77 
ἘΠ VEE Sh Se hs eh teers 67 || SOR ΤΟΥΣ ome Rpt 78 
Ἐπ πῖνε 1 A ae ee 69 1 C00 cs rave dah alten 69 
BERV OG Lise occ gee te wean 70 casa || πο στ, Spurn A epee ἢ νῸν 68 
Ὁ ΠΑΡ Τρ, ΡΥ ana ein a SA 68 Wik: ἢ. ΦΥΤΟΥ͂ 65, 66 
Ne ΣΎ αν ΣΝ 58. 66 ἘΣ 51 en ere eae pe ES Be eee A 66 
a Paes a eee δ δ᾽ ἢ 73 a | RE RRC ee ee Pree ee 57, 66, 70 
ἐν NI ρον tiles oe sre! weet 58, 66 ye SE oe CoP ny eR σα ΟΝ ἀφ. 82 
OE doses Ne ΤΩΣ 6a te Ne & a πότον 73 Sie. hy. ΠΥ eae 67 
jn ee 65, 72 Revit. 112. τὸ ρον ΠΟΘΕΝ 73 
ἜΣ ΞΟ ee ne 72 ΗΝ ΒΕΘῪΥ macs rn ve ated en 70 
i ay ΣΝ προ ee 55 rt Sa eee tier Roy kw Pte on oh, τ 68 
Og EE eS eee 55 MN. AT εξ τ ERE σαν στον, 67 
Paced a elu ee Sik <i e wes 66 OT Τὰ ον bn eeu hee τον 69 


94 


PAGE PAGE 

BOA TE. OD. cowie Δ ce erro ree GO) Zeon. xii, 10. τ ς fee eee 72 

AG ee eon γι] ἘΝ ΠΕ oe 7 

LTS ER τ stants eure 72 SVs ὙΜῚ ΑΙ ΤΟΥ τ 4. ek 

oS" - case axts cielwVesees 72 eo OT cd accbeees ΤΣ 72 

πᾶ κυ Sk wise nace 66 ΤΕ cites Pee 72 

WOE, ον ΣΝ ΤΟΣ Ger mal, 1, 10-11 ρον νὰς τιν τ ΚΕ Ὶ 58 

Pad Fas Bala sir win o's co oa ούτε 82 Baruch iii. 86-38 ............... 57 
nis RE Pe gee dr 89. Hymn of the Three Holy Children, 

we CEOs Wh ans vida bi inataaeee 82 | iS Se ee eg 60 

PS ROR Oh ak aoa 0’ CD Ol | Mate ὙΣ, Δ ewe se A cancer cee 64 

Ὁ} ἩΡΚΥ ΤΥ 7 ἐν 82. ἊΝ, | ey ME απο τ, 66 

ἔχ ΡΟΝ aa cc csabectescaew’ 81 ἐς ΡΝ ΥΎ ΤΥ ΡΥ ἢ Ὁ ΤΊ Χ 1 Ὁ 03 

Praca vs ΤΕ ΜῊ 81 SEW. ἶς οὐ ήτο τ λον 59, 63 

ME hoe eke hho ated Ob 0 81, 82 ime ἀρ αν ἜΡΓ ΡΣ. 89 

OS θολὸς δος 58 Savi. 18S Pees de avesieek 64 

μον μευ Ἢ 66, 73 ΡΟ Meas ee 64 

MES ἢ ΠΥ om Sid idinice Wawa 9D | Maver παν BB ised on ks hoes 64 

πα Tgp | ee eae en a 72 | SVL AOS. cs he ΡΤ: 63 

MEMS eS a SA dein a bie Ok hk wads OO.) Luke xiv: 201.42... τοι 64 

τ ΟΣ δ 72 ἜΧΟΥ 63 

le Bh necal wee kas shee OT} done 4.80 οι 5. aot vse 70 

SUNN: RRS co dos a ky ΠΥ ΤῸ; ae: oy ee ἀπ wae ong era ie 59 

Res eee wicca coe cases Ψ}11. ὙΠ: 31 ep τ ον 63 


SRE τον ΣΡ ΟΣ 70, 


. fit : at 
ar 7 “ 
» Β as 
3 ; ἃ 4 ᾿ 
Ἐν Ὁ. ᾿ νον, ae 
φ An ya ΜΝ a. a = 
᾿ er, ue γ ΨΩ Ὡς: 
wt + a a τὰ ὴ Ps 1 ; 


at | om 


a tr) νυ: ψ 
eal vot 


iis. = 


.- 


Δ 


oy ae Se 


ie 


abe, 


ee} 
a re. . oe 
Σ Ἢ > 


TBE ΠΏ ΠΥ AE HBAS Dy Sol 


᾿ ΤΣ sib a col +4, ae ts eth 


ryt 


ἢ ΠΗ th AS 
eet aH ON, 
wy fete $e 


SGRDOHE ebb de 


ὍΝ, ΚΑ ΡΟΝ 7 te 


5 οι ἀφο 
Μ᾽ 
τ 


~ ~ i 


By ue 
ΔΎ 


ἢ ΠΟ 


Bi 


a2 


qs 
ve Begs non 


ΜΉΝ 
Beaty pate) 


SAN 


ἐν 
i iy) Ἢ AS 


Cope te Tel bel ke Taft, 
He ΜΗ ὩΣ a bec: “, 2,2 ..2}} 


- Seles Hite 4 


ar nv 


Att 


Mi 


Hie Biss ΝΕ 


κε {6 ἢ 
ΠΟΙ ΧΌΤΗΝΝ 


a) “test, 


ING 


24) 
᾿ wake a 
me me ae 
ἐδ 


ἜΝ 
Be 


δ : ΜῊ 
ἌΟΡΙ Ἄ a in Saree 
BEA 


A SE 


᾿ sth ἣν ee 


id} GA ΡΥ 


ΜΗ Nora) 


ἐν le 


ae 


iy 
Enis ee 
ἀν 


{ oe a | i 
se Ἢ ΓΝ 

an ᾿ς . 

ΟΝ 


ἰκ 
‘ ἀν 


Me Ὧν if 


iy. 


y, ets 
a 4h 


Ἢ 4, 
i 


Hy 
cs 


foe 
XY, ΓΡΑῸΣ 
OSE ARNG, 
ine ae i 


“ WAYNE: VOD 


a 


Weg atti A 
e308 de 


Wide 
if 


Aig: 


{ ie 
x! ἡτὴ 
: ἢ isa 


rf 


( 
ἦι ae ry 
“GN Ἢ γ᾿ ; ay 


33: 
J 


iy 
ὦ 
i" a fi 
bens 


Oy ἊΝ 


* 


ΗΝ 


hi rye a 


3 νυ 
coe G 


fier 


RIANA EGE Garg f 
ΠΩΣ We SS i Oe ae 


Ἢ “in 
Be rats : 
δὰ Kt Karat 


ict s 
on Ἢ 


΄; 
eats 


peat 


ess 


“ἢ : " 


tc 


, pee: Leelee wet entree seed iene ieee 


Se Seek eee λ- 


Cla peg “re, 


~ 
—, 


orton 


a AP “ὦ 


ve ea 


OP Sgt = mare 


Ser Sr ποτ owe or 


